Talk:Sciences Po

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)

The version now in the article comes from this edit. It seems a fair middle ground between the different positions. --Launebee (talk) 16:30, 5 May 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 [1]), 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" [2] [3] 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 [4]? 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[5][6]. 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" [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

--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. [14] --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)

Since no consensus, I removed the whole subject of reputation from the lead. (Some have been trying to put again things about prestige that the sources don’t say.) --Launebee (talk) 16:25, 5 May 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[15]. 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)

As anyone can see, no quotation marks can be found on the sentence I have provided. You are presenting that as a common viewpoint.

I don't understand why 1nfo.net is used. Even a blog would be better than that thing. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Everyone can see there are quotations marks! --Launebee (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Except if you are talking about the beginning of your quote, but then I already changed it in the article. Launebee (talk) 15:22, 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)

The kind of criticism you are talking about is your invention. And If there are so many references, it is because you are denying the serious criticism. --Launebee (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain me why you also remove anything that could be seen as positive about this school. You say that it's too long, but you don't shorten it. You simply erase it

75 % of the references are about criticism. But that part is not too long, right ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

It is a content I added, someone wrote more about it, it is only a small event about bad review of students. It is a criticism of Sciences Po by its students that I removed. --Launebee (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Let me quote @Toden102:}, the real author of that part : "The survey in question wasn't presented in a neutral way: the article only mentioned results that were negative for Sciences Po. Added a reference from L'Etudiant, the site that originally reported the survey."[16]

This part stated something positive about the school, and you removed it.

I just want to make the situation clear before starting the ArbCom process.

All the process is public, so your actions here, with Eduniversal and/or Panthéon-Assas University... will be available to anyone. Contributors, journalists... XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

How is it good to say that students were disapointed by the degree? I put again the positive part if you really want so, it was just too long. --Launebee (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Academics Section

Hello, I changed the 'Activities' section to 'Academics', and wrote added a couple subsections listing the schools at Sciences Po. I know that Launebee generally deletes anything people add to this page, so please protect my work if you think it improves the wiki. I do not have time to be on here everyday. I just had a few hours on a Saturday and wanted to improve the article. Moderators: please consider protecting this section if and when Launebee deletes it as 'unencyclopedic.' (not signed)

Thanks for your attack "Launebee will probably delete this as 'unencyclopedic', though I copied other uni wikis. I do not have time to deal with her, I will leave that fight with the rest of you." in the edit summary. I am not in a fight. Indeed, your changes seem too much internal information, but seems it is not obviously too much, I don’t touch it if nobody else see a problem. --Launebee (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Research

Hello! @Launebee I noticed you've taken down a section I wrote talking about the various research centers at Sciences Po. I'm well aware of the heated discussions surrounding Sciences Po's reputation etc. on this page, but I've actually been trying to steer clear of that in favor of fleshing out some of the shorter sections in the article.

Research was 32% of SP's budget in 2015 so clearly it's an important part of what the university does - the part on 'Research' surely needs more detail. I don't see how what I wrote about the research centers was controversial. I included references and made an effort to keep the language neutral. Could you explain why you took it down please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toden102 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I have to confess that I don't understand that either. On the Panthéon-Assas University talk page, less than a week ago @Launebee: clearly said that anyone should "stop removing sourced content" and talk before removing slice of the article. And then *BOUM* than 5000 bytes removed, and then *BOUM* *BOUM* a request for a full lock of the page [17]. And it hasn't been discussed here first. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

+1. This is not a one time thing, and Launebee has exhausted my time an emotional resources with this kind of behavior. My experience trying to turn this controversy into something constructive indicates that good faith collaboration is extremely costly to maintain and largely failing in this case. The history of Launebee's contributions speaks for itself. I support the Arbcom process. SalimJah (talk) 08:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The content seemed unencyclopedical to me, because too much of internal information. @Kautilya3:, is it? If you think it is ok, I am ok to with the added "research" content. --Launebee (talk) 09:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Launebee, thanks for your reply. Are there clear guidelines anywhere stating that internal sources are 'unencyclopedical' ones? Genuine question, please send it if so.

I had a look at a few articles for a few other universities and they all seemed to have referenced internal information a lot. On top of this, I feel I made the effort to ensure information from the Sciences Po's website was phrased in a neutral way. E.g. the Sciences Po website described one of its centers like this: "Jointly established in Paris by Sciences Po and the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies (MPIfG), the Centre aims to make substantive contributions to the social sciences in Europe and to enrich academic and political dialogue between France and Germany." But in the article I phrased this as a much simpler, more factual statement: "Sciences Po founded the Max Planck Sciences Po Center on Coping with Instability in Market Societies (known as MaxPo) in co-operation with the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies (MPIfG)." and left out any stuff about about 'enriching dialogue' etc that could be viewed as advertisement. As I said before , I think the 'Research' section was in clear need of fleshing out and I don't think what I added was controversial.

Anyway, thanks for replying and explaining your thinking! Toden102 (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor comment - Please note that WP:RS states that articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Self-sourced material should only be used to source additional detail for facts that are already established by third-party secondary sources. That does not seem to be the case here. Secondly, Wikipedia generally prefers prose text to lists. See WP:EMBED for the guidelines as well as how to format lists so that they do not interfere with prose reading. Finally, as an academic, I feel that the so-called "research centres" are often gimmicks used by Universities to make themselves look impressive to funding organisations or donors. Whether they are notable or not is questionable. Some centres are certainly extremely notable, e.g., the varous Beckman Institutes in the US universities. (They are evidently named after a rich donor but most of them have become independent institutions in their own right.) But in most other cases, the research centres are just branded research groups. In this case, the long list of research centres is WP:UNDUE unless there is verification of notability from third-party sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya3 That's very informative, thank you. I agree the current long list formatting is awkward and needs improving one way or another.

I'd argue that some of research centers mentioned should remain in the article e.g. the MaxPo center seems notable, as does the OFCE since it also operates as an independent forecasting body. I think there's also a case for including the seven Sciences Po centers that are affiliated with France's National Center for Scientific Research (obviously there needs to be a good source confirming the centers that have that affiliation).

However, it seems fair enough to me that any other 'research centers' that don't fit that criteria are removed and don't get a mention. Toden102 —Preceding undated comment added 12:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit-war (May 2017)

The edit war is on my three edits. Two of them are in separate sections (above and under), the third one is me putting in the article "A Sciences Po-run poll suggested that 93% of alumni would recommend the school.". Does anyone is opposing to this? --Launebee (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

References

RfC about an edit-war in the lead

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.

---

Should the lead contain the following text:

Sciences Po is widely considered to be one of Europe's most prestigious academic institutions and was ranked 4th globally in politics and international studies by the QS World University Subjects Rankings 2017. Alumni include many notable public figures, including seven of the last eight French presidents, 12 foreign heads of state or government, a former United Nations Secretary-General, and a number of CEOs of France's 40 largest companies.

References

Launebee (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose, absolutely no source in the article is supporting the first statement, and the word prestigious should not be in any university article anyway (as an adjective to them). No source for the second statement, and not neutral if nothing is said about the bad reputation too.. Launebee (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Qualified support. "Most prestigious" is an instance of WP:PEACOCK. It should be weakened to something like "one of leading institutions". Other than that, the rest is fine. A lead doesn't need to have citations except for any contentious claims. The article body should provide support for any claims made here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Qualified support. Yes, adjusting that line to something more neutral-sounding seems fair to me. Toden102 (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• Qualified support. Agreed. Kautilya3's statement is correct and balanced. SalimJah (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose About 80% of it looks unencyclopedic and cherry-picked to be promotional. This includes those portions of the alumni that look vague and cherry-picked as if to promote the university. The "seven of the last eight French presidents" does look fine though, not having these problems. North8000 (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

North8000Thanks for your reply. I agree on the general point that this part needs to be re-worded to sound more neutral, but I disagree on your point about alumni – as I said in the thread below it seems to me like significant information, plus looking at other Wikipedia pages for some of Science Po’s partner universities / other French universities, it seems to be common practice to mention well-known alumni in the lead.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24]

Could you explain a bit more about why you object to it? Do you think it would be ok if more citations were added? Why do you feel the bit about alumni including French presidents is relevant but not the bits about CEOs of French companies/head of the UN/heads of state etc?Toden102 (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment' there is never any reason in any WP article to make use of the word "prestigious". If justified, the material in the article will make it obvious, as it does here. Better "Sciences Po Alumni include many notable public figures, including seven of the last eight French presidents, 12 foreign heads of state or government, a former United Nations Secretary-General, and many CEOs of France's 40 largest companies; it was ranked 4th globally in politics and international studies by the QS World University Subjects Rankings 2017." DGG ( talk ) 07:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC) "prestigious" , "even most prestigious" is weak as compared with the plain facts. Any university can claim these adjectives, and a great man do; none can claim a comparable record. " The best rule of writing is to try to omit any adjectives of praise, however justified. DGG ( talk ) 07:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

This sounds fair to me! As I've said elsewhere, I think that information on notable alumni should be in the lead (in common with plenty of other pages on universities). But I think it makes sense that terms like 'prestigious' don't really need to be included.Toden102 (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Most prestigious", without evidence? No way. Maproom (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• There has been an edit-war, this text being put again five times in the lead.[25][26][27][28][29]. This whole text should be obviously removed, and no text about the reputation should be brought back in the lead until we find a consensus for a neutral statement in it, summarizing the two sides of SP reputation. --Launebee (User:Launebee) 23:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Launebee, leaving aside that other sentence for a moment, why do you think the bit about well-known SP alumni (French presidents, head of UN, head of IMF etc.) should be removed? My feeling is that it's pretty important information about the school that should be mentioned in the lead. That's also completely in line with a ton of other wikipedia pages on universities with notable alumni. However, it's something you’ve recently tried to remove quite a few times (e.g.[30][31][32][33][34][35]) and now include it in the text that you argue should be deleted - could you clarify why you object to the bit about notable alumni in particular? Toden102 (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point of view. My view was that, being linked to reputation, it should not be there if there isn’t the part about bad reputation, but it is true it can be argued it is not a question of reputation. But it is not neutraly worded. So it is to be erased first, and then put back neutraly worded. --Launebee (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Kautilya3: So you oppose in fact. The question is about keeping this sentence as such. If we agree on the removal, then the next step is to agree on what to put, but that is another discussion. No source in the whole article is saying that it is prestigious or "one of the leading institution" in Europe. If no source is saying so, we can't make that up So for now, let’s only agree on the fact this sentence should be removed. Launebee (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• @DGG: I agree with the word "prestigious", never to be used. Here the sentence is not even justified because no source is saying it is prestigious in Europe. Isn’t the wording "many CEOs of France's 40 largest companies" not neutral for many, and advertisement style for the end? --Launebee (talk) 09:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you have a point regarding the use of terms like 'prestigious', but as I've said elsewhere, I think the bit about notable alumni is significant information, is completely in line with other university pages and so it makes sense that it's included. Why do you consider the bit about CEOs to be 'advertising'? And why do you object to the mention of CEOs but not the mention of French presidents, heads of UN and international organizations etc? Toden102 (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2017 (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.

Moving forward

Finally, Toden102 said that there is a strong consensus for this sentence altering the lead and I agree. So I make a new request for the new sentence he wants to put, along with SalimJah. --Launebee (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Which one of the following three alternatives should appear in the lead? --Launebee (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey, first sentence, version 1 (see version 2)

Is this sentence acceptable in the lead?

Sciences Po is considered one of Europe's leading academic institutions in the social sciences and was ranked 4th globally in politics and international studies by the QS World University Subjects Rankings 2017.

References

• Oppose: The source is not saying that and is only a promoting brochure. No source at all is saying that SP is a leading institution in Europe. Only one source is saying that it is considered as an elite institution in France, but nothing else. --Launebee (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Let me quote the source: "The research units, all leaders in the social sciences in Europe etc." (p. 1). Campus France is a governmental agency whose role is to promote and help with international student exchanges. It has nothing to do with Sciences Po and operates under the aegis of the French ministry of Foreign Affairs + Higher Education. Even the foreign references which are critical of Sciences Po call it an "elite institution" and a "school for Europe’s political elite". SalimJah (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Calling it one of Europe's leading institutions is perfectly justified. Here is how other Universities describe it: "a leading social science institution for both teaching and research" (University of Pittsburgh), "leading institution in the field" (American University), "one of Europe's leading humanities institutions" (University of Sydney), "UK's and France's leading social science institutions" (LSE, referring to itself and Sciences Po), "leading research institutions in Europe" (Max Planck Institute, referring to itself and Sciences Po), "France’s leading university in the social sciences" (University of Hongkong), "leading research university in the social sciences in France" (TransSol), " leading institution in international higher education" (Japan Foundation), and dozens more such descriptions are easy to find. The 4th in QS rankings for political sciences is also entirely appropriate since it is an institution specialising in political science. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned in the discussion, these sources are not acceptable. They are ads from partners university saying "look at the beautiful partner we have". Nothing neutral. You can find such praising statements for a lot of universities in their partner website. Because it’s partners, it’s even worth as a source than the website of the university itself, where they would be some self-restraint in the language. --Launebee (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

SP prestigious because it gives access to high public service, but it is not "leading" at all. At very least, it is a very partial point of view. You can see in the THE ranking: SP is not among the 27 best universities in France, nor is it listed in politics, or economics. USNews does not list it either in business. And in the French ranking institution, Eduniversal, it is not among the top 10 in Economics nor in Law. Partners ads are not sources for an encyclopedia. --Launebee (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems there is a consensus in discussions to change it. So I move to version 2 and 3 proposed. --Launebee (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya3, you add your opinion here, but this discussion is closed. SalimJah agreed this version should change (see under), so I put his new proposal in version 2. --Launebee (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

You cannot close your own RfC. An uninvolved editor must close it. You can however "withdraw" your own RfC. But you must withdraw the entire RfC, not just one option. Please read and follow the guidelines at WP:RfC. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Launebee (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey, first sentence, version 2

Is this sentence acceptable in the lead?

Sciences Po is considered one of Europe [or France]'s leading academic institutions in the social sciences [ref]. It is particularly known for politics and international studies, where it was ranked fourth globally in the QS World University Subjects Rankings 2017 [ref].

References

• Oppose: No independant source is saying Sciences Po is a "leading" institution, in France or Europe. Campus France has the role to promote French institutions, and is only saying it is prominent. The book link deals with reputation only, and no specific quote is given. The Cain link is not saying that at all. I’ve put a survey for Robminchin's version. The sources mentionned by Kautilya3 are obviously ads from partner universities, they don’t count at all. --Launebee (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support: As above. This seems to be a more readable wording. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC) @Kautilya3:, so you finally oppose this version? --Launebee (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support:I support using this phrasing. As Kautilya3 pointed out, there are actually plenty of sources describing it as ‘leading ’, plus this version is way clearer and more readable. The lead should probably also makes clear that Sciences Po is specialized in social sciences, politics etc but going with this version makes sense to me.
• Support: Same meaning as version 1, but better wording. We agree that Sciences Po can be described as a leading European institution in the social sciences. The only question that remains to me is whether the ranking part in the second sentence belongs to the lead or the body. SalimJah (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose As a disinterested editor who came here in response to the RfC, this version does not look NPOV. If I may quote from WP:PRESTIGE: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions, but do not assert the opinions themselves. Editors should not be trying to 'sell', 'spin', or otherwise convince readers of the quality of the school. 'One of the' and 'widely recognized' are canonical weasel words: how many are among the best, what specific recognition, best on what criteria, how recent in the recognition, etc. If the statement can't stand without weasel words it lacks a neutral point of view." As it stands, the first sentence is both asserting an opinion ("…is widely recognized as a leader in…" is actually one of the examples given) and using "canonical weasel words".

One of the reasons for this advice is that if an article, particularly in the lead, looks non-NPOV then it reflects badly not only on Wikipedia but also on the institution concerned – if it is necessary to protest a university's greatness, then it can't really be that great. Sciences Po is one of the leading institutions of Europe, and that is precisely why the facts should be allowed to speak for themselves. Robminchin (talk) 04:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey, first sentence, version 3

Is this sentence acceptable in the lead? --Launebee (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Science Po was ranked 62nd in the world (and third in France) for social sciences in 2017 by the QS rankings but outside of the top 100 by the Times Higher Education 2016 rankings, and is not included in the top 200 by the Academic Ranking of World Universities. It is particularly known for politics and international studies, where it was ranked fourth globally in the QS World University Subjects Rankings 2017.

References

• Partial support: Agree with Robminchin, but the "known for" is problematic as no source is saying so. --Launebee (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Oppose: I prefer the earlier versions as they are succinct and go to stating the notability of the institution. The additional detail can go in the body. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC) I have been swayed by Robminchin's arguments that all the rankings need to be mentioned for WP:NPOV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Same as Kautilya3 - these sentences just sound muddled to me. The social sciences ranking should possibly be in the lead but the 'outside of the top 100… and is not included in the top 200' sentence just reads weirdly and just makes the paragraph less clear, when the lead should be succinct and to the point. I’d save it for the body of the article. Toden102 (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment This wording, or something similar, is necessary if rankings are mentioned. Giving only the QS rankings would be cherry-picking, and this clearly non-NPOV. It might be better, and would be equally acceptable, to simply avoid mentioning rankings on the lead altogether and save them (as Kautilya3 and Toden102 suggest) for the body of the article. Robminchin (talk) 04:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: The lead should be about providing a crisp and accurate description of what Sciences Po is, not about listing all possible academic rankings. The global rankings actually don't make sense in this case, since Sciences Po specializes in the social sciences. SalimJah (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey, paragraph, version 4

Shall we avoid mentionning ranking, reputation and alumni in the lead? --Launebee (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support if removed together, oppose otherwise : Agree with Robminchin (survey 3). If no agreement on version 3, then all mention of ranking, reputation and alumni (because removing only ranking would create a non neutral introduction about alumni and reputation) should be erased to let only neutral statements. --Launebee (talk) 08:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• Partial support: I would keep the alumni sentences in there – that is factual information (although get rid of "a number"). To avoid having over-short paragraphs, it might be worth merging the alumni into the history paragraph above. Robminchin (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, Robminchin I agree on avoiding overly short paragraphs, but I’d advocate making the history paragraph in the lead longer rather to solve that rather than merging it with other bits. Toden102 (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support on rankings, otherwise oppose: I now lean towards taking the rankings out for the sake of concision.

However, I don’t see the rationale for taking out alumni. As Robminchin said , it’s very common practice for to mention them. Also, I think it’s particularly appropriate in Sciences Po’s case because, as both its admirers and critics assert, it’s been very heavily involved in educating France’s ruling elite throughout the country’s recent history.

I also think reputation should be mentioned: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view advises ‘representing fairly, proportionately… all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.' Plenty of sources, even critical ones, present Sciences Po as particularly notable, especially in politics/social sciences (e.g.[36][37]) To me, this counts as a significant view that should be represented.

Just to be clear, I also want this sentence or something similar to be included: ‘the institution is criticized… for creating an oligarchy of disconnected leaders’. – This is also a very common view of the grandes ecoles, and especially of the ENA and Sciences Po, which have been accused of reproducing social elites, training a ruling class prone to groupthink etc (here’s a good summary of the main criticisms [38])

I think both these qualify as ‘significant viewpoints’ and should be mentioned in the lead. Toden102 (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I already introduced this bit in the lead. Nobody opposes it so far. This is a common criticism of the grandes écoles system (which Sciences Po is actively trying to fight BTW, we should mention its efforts trying to broaden its recruitment base in the body), and a natural counterpoint to their selectivity and reputation. SalimJah (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

SalimJah sorry, should have made clearer I was quoting the bit you added in the current lead. Should have said 'I support this remaining in the lead' :) Toden102 (talk) 10:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

You certainly make a good argument for the inclusion of something on the views that Sciences Po is particularly notable. My issue with "leading" is that it is a decidedly positive term. I wonder if something along the lines of "one of the most influential institutions in France", which leaves it (in my reading, at least) more open as to whether this is positive, would better capture the positive and negative aspects, particularly paired with the sentence on criticism. Robminchin (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Robminchin: No source is saying "one of the most influential institutions in France" or "leading". They just say it’s a place to get into the political elite. --Launebee (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya3 provided quotes above of sources saying "leading"; "influential" was my attempt to find a more neutral synonym. It is not necessary to use the exact same words as a source, best practice is to summarise what they say using your own words – as leading requires influence, this usage seemed reasonable to me (most influential was possibly overstating it though). Given that there is a general consensus to include some kind of statement about SP's standing, we should work on finding a neutral statement. Robminchin (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Robminchin: The sources given by Kautilya3 are not acceptable. They are ads from partners university saying "look at the beautiful partner we have". Nothing neutral. You can find such praising statements for a lot of universities in their partner website. Because it’s partners, it’s even worth as a source than the website of the university itself, where they would be some self-restraint in the language. --Launebee (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Robminchin: The fact SP would be a leading institution in France is absolutely false. It is prestigious because it gives access to high public service, but it is not "leading" at all. At very least, it is a very partial point of view. You can see in the THE ranking: SP is not among the 27 best universities in France, nor is it listed in politics, or economics. USNews does not list it either in business. And in the French ranking institution, Eduniversal, it is not among the top 10 in Economics nor in Law. Partners ads are not sources for an encyclopedia. --Launebee (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Launebee ‘absolutely false’ is a very strong claim and I don’t think it’s fair to draw that conclusion on the basis of the links you’ve posted.

The two rankings from Eduniversal are for bachelor’s degrees in law and economics - Sciences Po doesn’t offer either of those courses so of course it wouldn’t feature in those rankings.

THE's methodology is known for attaching more weight to ‘hard sciences’ - those rankings fit that pattern, since basically all the schools there are either known for STEM subjects (ENS, Polytechnique, UPMC, Paris Sud, Descartes, Mines, CentraleSupélec, Ecole Centrale de Lyon etc) or else they’re massive public universities like Aix-Marseille, Strasbourg, Montpellier, which have big science departments. Not saying THE rankings shouldn’t be in the article, just that in the case of Sciences Po I think they’re less helpful for forming an overall impression.

I’m less familiar with the US News ranking, but that ranking is focused on business courses, which isn’t something Sciences Po is known for anyway Toden102 (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Top universities partner with other top universities, and while they may have a vested interest in saying that their partners are also top universities, they wouldn't be partnering with them if the statement wasn't true. I don't think it is possible to dismiss these sources as irredeemably biased. Also see WP:NEUTRALSOURCE: sources don't have to be neutral (and possibly never are). Furthermore, the criticism advanced against SP is that its influence is bad – nobody seems to be arguing that it doesn't have influence.

On rankings, it is worth noting that the London School of Economics is ranked 23rd overall by THE and 37th by QS, which would seem to contradict the assertion that THE treats social sciences specialist institutions worse than QS. US News isn't quite as bad as ARWU, but it still contains an explicit bias towards larger institutions (40% of the weighting is on indicators uncorrected for institution size, compared to 100% for ARWU) so is measuring a mixture of quantity and quality. Robminchin (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

"Top university" is a point of view isn’t it? The critics are not saying it has a bad influence, but it gives a bad education to influential people, it’s not the same. And no source is saying so in this way. Brochures from universities are not reliable sources. In this case, to me, the fact they say it is "leading" even though no ranking is comforting it show that it is ad. --Launebee (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking around, even if those sources are considered to have a conflict of interest (which is not the same as being unreliable), there are other sources identifying Science Po as "elite" or "prestigious" from reliable news organisations.[39][40][41][42]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/liberte-inegalite-fraternite-is-french-elitism-holding-the-country-back-8621650.html][43]. "Influential" is, particularly coupled with the sentence on criticism, a neutral way of expressing this as we want to avoid using "elite", "prestigious" or "leading". If you think there is dispute over whether Sciences Po is influential, please post some reliable sources saying that. Robminchin (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

(I've deleted the topuniversities.com reference above as, on re-reading, it is clearly copy provided by the university (it refers to 'our student body').) Robminchin (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

OK for The Independant saying it is considered as an elite institution, I can agree with that. --Launebee (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support on rankings, otherwise oppose: Version 2 above is concise and accurate NPOV. We can certainly take the QS ranking out so that all rankings are reported together in the corresponding body section, but the rest (alumni and reputation bits) definitely belong there. SalimJah (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - If I under this proposal correctly, it is proposing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Anybody reading an article on an academic institution wants to know its relative standing in its field. This proposal is a non-starter for me. Perhaps a separate discussion should be started on what aspects of its standing should be covered, and this RfC was possibly premature. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey, paragraph, version 5

Should it replace the paragraph currently dealing with ranking, alumni and reputation? --Launebee (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Science Po was ranked 62nd in the world (and third in France) for social sciences in 2017 by the QS rankings but outside of the top 100 by the Times Higher Education 2016 rankings, and is not included in the top 200 by the Academic Ranking of World Universities. Alumni include five French presidents, 12 foreign heads of state or government, a former United Nations Secretary-General, and CEOs of France's 40 largest companies.

References

• Support: Hope this version will find a consensus. Neutral wording of rankings, no cherry-picking of the best one. Nothing about reputation, good or bad, since it seems impossible to have a neutral wording on that. Alumni neutrality worded (if the numbers are correct). --Launebee (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: As said elsewhere on the page, reputation ought to be in the lead, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which recommends that we mention“all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.”I disagree that it’s impossible to find neutral wording :) Toden102 (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey, paragraph, version 6

A further attempt at a consensus text, trying to draw on what everyone has said. No rankings, an attempt at a balanced reputation statement, and the alumni. (Some refs need to be filled out properly, but this should do for here) Robminchin (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Sciences Po is considered to be an influential academic institution in the social and political sciences in France, although it has been criticised (along with other prominent grandes écoles) for creating a technocracy of disconnected leaders. Alumni include many notable public figures, including seven of the last eight French presidents, 12 foreign heads of state or government, a former United Nations Secretary-General, and six of the CEOs of France's 40 largest companies.

References

• Comment Thank you for proposing solutions. I agree with the first part to France, but not on how the criticism is presented. Sciences Po is critized in itself, not with other Grandes Écoles, and I disagree with the word "leader", unduly positive, we should talk more about "oligarchy" like in the independent article. Moreover, if we talk about reputation, we should talk about the financial and political scandals. --Launebee (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support with comments: This definitely goes in the right direction. A few comments: 1) There's only one occurrence of the word "oligarchy" in the Independent article, and it's in reference to the Chinese political system. 2) The criticism needs to be put in the broader context of the French grandes écoles system. The first source on criticism is about Sciences Po and ENA. The Independent article discusses the grandes écoles system in general (refers primarily to ENA, but also Sciences Po, Polytechnique, HEC...). So the proposal is properly informative. 3) I don't like the "although" in the first sentence. This reads as if the "influence" and "technocracy" parts were directly related, which needs not be the case. I'd separate those statements in two distinct sentences, preserving the balance. 4) We've discussed evidence that, at the scale of the French social and political sciences world, Sciences Po is more than "one" influential institution. "Highly" influential, or something or that sort, would see like more in line with its disproportionate representation in politics, media, government and policy. I agree that we need to use neutral language, but I also don't want us to overdo it in the other direction. What do people think? 5) We need a reference for the 6/40 largest companies CEOs. Does anybody have that? SalimJah (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment It seems to me that the scandals are now historical – unless SP is currently embroiled in a scandal, this has no place in the lead. I would agree with SalimJah that the criticism seems, on the whole, to be in the context of the grandes écoles system. However, I do feel that the criticism is directly linked to the influence – if SP alumni weren't moving into positions of power, nobody would be concerned. "Highly influential" would seem acceptable to me if there is a consensus for that. The 6/40 is taken from the body text, but the alumni section isn't well referenced generally (SP is far from unique in this); the claim should also be dated as CEOs of to companies terms to move around. Robminchin (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Robminchin:It is Sciences Po that is directly critised, not the Grandes écoles in general. Le Monde (not column or blog), France Inter, Sciences Po for Dummies, Richard Descoings himself are talking about a the "common idea" of Sciences Po being "Sciences Pipeau" (pronounced "Pipo"), and Pipeau means "fake", it is about Sciences Po in particular. --Launebee (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking over the articles cited and references therein, I see an article about a book criticising the Grandes Ecoles generally, with some concentration on ENA but drawing in SP, an article criticising SP and ENA but concentrating on SP, an article criticising SP and am article about a book criticising ENA. To say that only SP is being criticised would be a misrepresentation of the balance of the articles. That SP has a handy nickname is neither here nor there, and that Descoings and a book about SP talked about it is hardly surprising but doesn't really tell us anything. Robminchin (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Robminchin: I understand, but the kind of criticism it faces are different than the ones of the other ones. In the same time, it’s ok if you think these should not be included. Regarding the scandals, the events are very recent and nothing has been done to reform the institution regarding those financial issues. Last year again, the Cour des comptes, very important institution in France, denounced again financial operations of Sciences Po (including the hôtel de l'Artillerie one, ongoing and which has been said illegal): https://www.lesechos.fr/politique-societe/societe/021686598290-la-cour-des-comptes-met-en-doute-le-modele-economique-de-sciences-po-1199195.php , the financial scandals are not finished, they are ongoing. However, I changed a little bit the proposal 7. All of that is very special to Sciences Po, it is very noticeable and should be included in the lead. I am strongly opposed to the changes proposed by the other ones. And I think the rankings should be included if we talk about reputation. --Launebee (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment: There’s a lot of context missing here.

1)It's true that the opinion of the Cours des Comptes is very important in France. However, it ought to be pointed out that it’s investigated a lot of institutions in recent years: in 2012 (same time they were reporting on SP) they criticized 22 different business schools for poor management, discrimination etc. ([44]); in 2013 they criticized Versailles University for financial mismanagement ([45]); this March they criticized the IEPs of Bordeaux, Grenoble and Aix for mismanagement ([46]) and had very harsh words for France Business School, which had to close down ([47]). This year they also criticized the Paris-Saclay federation for poor management of 5 billion euros of public money ([48]). I’m not claiming that SP’s scandals are insignificant, but this context is mainly why I’m skeptical about presenting them in the lead as something uniquely notable.

2)The Cour des Comptes reported on management reforms at SP last year, and had both praises and criticisms ([49]). SP can be critiqued it on the effectiveness of its reforms, but it’s surely not the case that‘nothing has been done to reform the institution’.

3)It’s true that there was controversy regarding SP’s purchase of hotel de l’artillerie last year but that’s separate from the 2012 scandals relating to Richard Descoings’ leadership. Surely the place to mention it is the main article rather than the lead. Toden102 (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support with comment: It is a good effort. The only amendment I would suggest is to split off the "although" clause and put it at the end. I generally recommend positive first and negative later, so that we don't appear to be grinding an axe. (I like the phrasing "technocracy of disconnected leaders", and the proposed alternative of "oligarchy of blinkered whatever" is definitely not neutral.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support with some alterations: Definitely moving in the right direction! A few comments:

1) I’d change ‘it is criticized for creating’ to ‘critics have accused it of creating’ – this sounds more neutral to me as it presents the criticisms more plainly as a particular viewpoint.

2) As said, SP has been very heavily involved in educating France’s governing elite throughout the country’s recent history, which to me seems the main reason it’s both admired and criticized. I agree with SalimJah that ‘highly influential’ is appropriate. I also think it would be appropriate to change ‘influential in the social and political sciences in France’ to ‘influential in French politics and society.’ This would also make the next sentence about creating a technocracy sound more obviously related.

3) On the 'although' bit: I agree with Robminchin that the ‘influence’ and ‘criticsm’ bits are surely linked. However, I’d split it into separate sentences just because personally I think it sounds better that way: “…considered to be a highly influential academic institution in French politics and society. However, critics have accused it of creating…”

4) Personally, I’d put the alumni at the beginning of the paragraph, followed by the sentence/s on reputation. That’s just a minor thing though! Toden102 (talk) 07:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support as the best version on this page at the time of this post. It needs more explication of precisely what its specialization in the social sciences amounts to, which is almost certainly a matter of going deeper and briefly explaining it, as opposed to just throwing in a bunch of rankings. Throwing in a bunch of rankings is never an optimal idea, but it's particularly useless here, since the different ones are so wildly divergent that anyone who doesn't already know what Sciences Po is will leave actively confused. Advocata (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Let me make an attempt at summarizing what has been said so far in a revised version of Robminchin's text. What about:

Sciences Po is considered to be a highly influential academic institution in the social and political sciences in France. Alumni include many notable public figures, including seven of the last eight French presidents, 12 foreign heads of state or government, a former United Nations Secretary-General, and six of the CEOs of France's 40 largest companies. Together with other prominent grandes écoles, critics have accused it of creating a technocracy of disconnected leaders.

In any case, the piece needs to be referenced in a better way. I've already mentioned that with respect to the 6/40 largest companies CEOs (if we can find a supporting reference, this is definitely worth mentioning here), but it also applies to references 4 and 5 above. I don't see how they relate to the points made here. One is about Dominique Strauss Kahn's career, the other is about the Front National recently managing to be formally represented among Sciences Po students... Any media geek around here to help us with this referencing task? :) SalimJah (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I totally oppose to this version, obviously not neutrally worded. --Launebee (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Launebee, could you be more specific? What in particular do you feel isn’t neutrally worded?

SalimJah , I quite like this structure. I agree that better sources may be available, especially on CEOs. I’d also mention heads of intl organizations as I think that’s at least as significant, and I’d expand the final sentence for clarity. I’ll write a new proposal based on this one and put it below as ‘Version 8’. Toden102 (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

See my comments in version 8. --Launebee (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey, paragraph, version 7

Sciences Po is considered to be an influential academic institution in the social and political sciences in France, although it has been criticised for creating a technocracy disconnected people. It has faced political and financial scandals. Science Po was ranked 62nd in the world (and third in France) for social sciences in 2017 by the QS rankings but outside of the top 100 by the Times Higher Education 2016 rankings, and is not included in the top 200 by the Academic Ranking of World Universities. Alumni include five French presidents, 12 foreign heads of state or government, a former United Nations Secretary-General, and CEOs of France's 40 largest companies.

References

Oppose: There seems to be a consensus that the lead will be clearer if we leave out the rankings. Toden102 (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Support: I don’t think there is a consensus on that. This version is the most neutral. --Launebee (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey, paragraph, version 8

For the last paragraph of the lead, how would this be? I've slightly expanded both the alumni bit and the sentence on criticisms. As SalimJah said, better sources may be available; however, I’ve used the same sources as Version 6 for now. Toden102 (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Sciences Po is considered to be a highly influential academic institution in the social and political sciences in France. Alumni include many notable public figures, including seven of the last eight French presidents, 12 foreign heads of state or government, a former United Nations Secretary-General, heads of the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund and European Central Bank, and six of the CEOs of France's 40 largest companies. Some observers have criticized the pervasiveness of Sciences Po graduates in public life, accusing it, together with other prominent grandes écoles, of creating a technocracy of out-of-touch leaders.

References

• Support This seems a good summary of the consensus position. Note: there were a couple of improperly-separated references, carried over from a formatting error I made earlier - I have corrected these here. Some of the references may not seem on-topic at first, but have relevant notes about SP, e.g. DSK "Attended Paris’ prestigious Institut d'études politiques de Paris – or Science Po – a breeding ground for the French elite" - it would be good to draw this out by quoting the relevant part inside the ref tags. Robminchin (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose:
  • No reference for "Highly influencial", clear POV.
  • "Many" is POV.
  • "seven of the last eight French presidents" is not factual, as Robminchin stated under.
  • "CEOs of France's 40 largest companies" is not neutraly worded. A internal link to the CAC40 is sufficient.
  • "Some observers" is not accurate, lots of reference regarding a lot of people.
  • "leaders" is not neutrally worded. It is public servants.
  • "out-of-touch": not neutral, and not accurate.
  • The critics should go with the praise.
  • Give the same amount of sources for the critics and the praise.

--Launebee (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

"Highly influential" is a summary of the many references referring to it as leading, prestigious or elite, recast into more neutral language.

"Many" is a simple descriptive term; there is no reasonable PoV that would consider the around 200 notable people at List of Sciences Po people anything other than "many".

I noted that "seven of the last eight French presidents" was inconsistent with what was stated in the text. The text has since been updated and it is now consistent. Your statement that I said this was not factual is incorrect.

Why is "CEOs of France's 40 largest companies" not neutrally worded? It seems like a plain statement of fact to me.

"some observers" means more than none and less than all. That seems accurate to me.

"leaders" is used in the Independent article cited: "In the name of “meritocracy” and “equality”, he says, France has built a system for selecting and formatting its political, administrative and business leaders which makes “Eton and Oxbridge” or the “Ivy League” look like a utopian experiment in social levelling." The criticism is referring to more than simply public servants.

"out-of-touch" is from "déconnectées" in the Contrepoints article cited

As you know, I supported linking the statement on its status with the criticism, but the consensus from the discussion above was to put the criticism at the end.

If you want to suggest other citations, then feel free to do so.

Robminchin (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about the mistake then. There are still the other issues. The sentence about the alumni is too long. I propose the version 7. --Launebee (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support This appropriately reflects the current consensus. I'm only concerned about the change from "disconnected" to "out of touch" in this last proposal. The latter implies a lack of relevant or up-to-date knowledge / information. This suggests a statement about the nature of the education provided, while the relevant disconnect in this paragraph seems to be more of a social one, i.e., the criticism is more about the social reproduction which perpetuates the said "oligarchy" through admission in those "elitist" schools. SalimJah (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with Robminchin’s comments.

SalimJah , personally I though 'out-of-touch' sounded better than ‘disconnected’, and I didn’t feel it changed the meaning in any substantial way. However, it’s a minor thing and I’m happy to concede and change it back if other editors agree :)

@Kautilya3: and @Advocata:, please comment on this version if possible. Toden102 (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd prefer "out of touch" - this is commonly used in English to describe politicians (and others) who are seen as not having (or having lost) contact with the people - try a google news search for "out of touch", this is mainly about politicians but includes (in my results just now) an article about "out of touch" tech companies. Usage to imply being out of date doesn't seem to be common. Robminchin (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Does nobody here actually understand what a "technocracy" is? A technocracy is most commonly used to refer to a system in which there are no elected officials and where decision-makers are scientists, engineers, or experts in technical/technological fields. "Technocracy is a system of governance where decision-makers are selected on the basis of technological knowledge. Scientists, engineers, technologists, or experts in any field, would compose the governing body, instead of elected representatives." We're on Wikipedia--has no one actually bothered to look any of this up? Ravenclaw0127 (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Technocracy according to the Oxford English Dictionary:

1. The government or control of society or industry by an elite of technical experts.

‘failure in the war on poverty discredited technocracy’

1.1 An instance or application of technocracy.

1.2 An elite of technical experts.

Your definition is inconsistent with English usage as documented by the OED, which has no implication of a lack of elected officials - Wikipedia should not be used as a source.

The Independent article cited above says:

“The system turns out people who are brilliant at writing long, beautifully argued reports on what should or should not be done,” Mr Gumbel told The Independent. “It is hopeless at training people who know how to make things happen. Hence, many of the problems of France today.”

The use of "technocracy" to describe a system where society is dominated by an elite who are technically brilliant but don't know how to make things actually happen is entirely in keeping with its normal English usage as supported by reliable sources. This usage can also be seen in, for example, the description of Emmanuel Macron as "a technocratic former investment banker" [50]. Robminchin (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The introduction claims that Sciences Po has been criticized by individuals for creating a technocracy. (Personal attack removed) the word "technocracy" is never even mentioned once in either of the articles that are cited. France has been criticized for creating a group of detached, elitist leaders (this is supported by the articles and many other sources--I would accept this). A technocracy, though? This is absolutely a stretch and does not belong in the introduction. If you manage to find an article claiming this, I wouldn't accept that to be a mainstream criticism of Sciences Po.

If anything, Sciences Po has been criticized for being a breeding ground for elite leaders instead of being a center for technically rigorous scholarly activity. So tell me how in the world Sciences Po has created a technocracy in France.

Also, you've cited one instance in which some writer on Slate referred to Macron as a technocratic investment banker. Its use to refer to Macron's former investment banking experience is a bit of a stretch, but reasonable and acceptable (knowledge in finance/banking). But the introduction is saying something completely different here. Trying to claim that Sciences Po, along with other elite schools, have created a technocracy in France is a claim of incomparable magnitude. It's ultimately a leap and an opinion (Personal attack removed).

Ravenclaw0127 (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The word "technocracy" does not have to be used in an article for it to be used here if it is a summary of what the article is saying, and I have already pointed out that The Independent criticises the grandes ecoles for creating a technically proficient but ineffective elite and that this elite dominates French society, and that this meets the OED definition of a technocracy. More explicit is academic Vivien A. Schmidt (formerly a visiting professor at Science Po): "The most enduring legacy of the postwar Model has been the perpetuation of a technocratic elite at the heart of the French State." [51]. Here she is saying, explicitly, that they have created a technocracy in France. That this is a critical opinion is flagged explicitly in the text, which is perfectly in keeping with how Wikipedia works.

However, I have no particular attachment to the use of "technocracy", even though it is correct. I would be quite happy with "Some observers have criticized the pervasiveness of Sciences Po graduates in public life, accusing it, together with other prominent grandes écoles, of creating an out-of-touch elite", or something similar, if this is the consensus of other editors. Robminchin (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a stretch. I could see how this could be included in the body of the text, but this is, at the end of the day, another individual's opinion that is inappropriate for the introduction of an article. I want to remind you that using the term "technocracy" is a a pretty strong way of characterizing any political system of a state, and that there is no need for the usage of this term when there are plenty of more neutral and less debatable ways of conveying the notion that Sciences Po has produced out-of-touch, elite leaders.

Let's imagine that you were able to meet some members of the French public, and that you could ask them if they thought France was a technocracy. I would wager that the vast majority of people would say: "I suppose that's debatable." Could there be some individuals that actually believe that France is now controlled by technical experts, or that power wielded by elected representatives has now become illusory or practically obsolete as a result? Perhaps. But there is no evidence to suggest that this is a widely held view or that this is a mainstream criticism leveled against Sciences Po and other grandes ecoles. And this particular criticism has not been substantiated sufficiently by the cited sources to warrant its mention in the introduction of the article. I want to emphasize that the content in the introduction is not suited for potentially contentious views or claims, and that, generally, we should gravitate towards claims that have garnered consensus.

Your suggestion, I think, is appropriate, and one that would gain the consensus of other editors. Ravenclaw0127 (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Consensus on Survey, paragraph, version 8

It seems that we're close to reaching a consensus on the above proposal. I see two minor point which we'd need to address:

1) It's true that the alumni list has gotten a bit lengthy. What about (same thing, shortened): "Alumni include many notable public figures, including seven of the last eight French presidents, 12 foreign heads of state or government, heads of international organizations (e.g., UN, WTO, IMF and ECB), and six of the CEOs of France's 40 largest companies."?

2) Use of the word "technocracy" to describe Sciences Po (and other grande écoles) graduates. I agree with Robminchin that this is an appropriate use of the term. If other editors support the idea of trying to find another formulation, what about: "...accusing it, together with other prominent grandes écoles, of perpetuating an out-of-touch ruling class."? SalimJah (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

1) Fair enough, reading it again it does seem a bit long! I would say ‘international organizations including the UN, WTO, IMF and ECB’ – personally I think ‘including’ sounds better than ‘e.g.’

2) Likewise, I don’t see a particular problem with the word ‘technocracy’ but equally I’m happy to change the phrasing. I support SalimJah ’s proposed wording. Toden102 (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

1) I think saying "e.g." is somewhat awkward; I agree with Toden10. Let's say "including" instead.

2) SalimJah's phrasing is an improvement, but I think it would be better to say: "....criticizing it, along with other prominent grandes ecoles, of perpetuating an out-of-touch group of leaders." The word "accusing" has a different connotation from the word "criticizing," and I think the latter would be appropriate. Also, the phrase "ruling class" is somewhat awkward here. A "group of leaders" would be better. Finally, I must insist on avoiding stronger terms like "technocracy," which may be a needlessly contentious term for the introduction of an article, which should generally gravitate towards claims that have gained general and wide-ranging consensus. Ravenclaw0127 (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

It is necessary that whatever is put in the lead has full regard for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". It appears to me that mentioning a single, highly favourable, ranking does not meet this criterion. I would suggest, as an alternative:

Science Po was ranked 62nd in the world (and third in France) for social sciences in 2017 by the QS rankings but outside of the top 100 by the Times Higher Education 2016 rankings, and is not included in the top 200 by the Academic Ranking of World Universities. It is particularly known for politics and international studies, where it was ranked fourth globally in the QS World University Subjects Rankings 2017.

This summarises the relevant global rankings (note that it's not possible to tell if ARWU ranks Sciences Po outside of the top 200 or if it simply doesn't include it) and places the subject ranking in context. To me, this would seem to come closer to neutrality. Robminchin (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

This seems fair enough to me! On putting ranking in the lead, I’d agree that the most neutral way would be to either mention a few rankings or none at all. According to this site ([52]) the QS rankings put it at #220 overall, #44 in sociology, #62 in social sciences and #4 in politics. When I googled just now it appeared to be unranked by ARWU and THE – tell me if otherwise! Personally I'd be ok with all that being mentioned. Toden102 (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but worry that this might be a lot of rankings related info for an article lead which should remain concise and to the point. What about:

Sciences Po is considered one of Europe's leading academic institutions in the social sciences [ref]. It is particularly known for politics and international studies, where it was ranked fourth globally in the QS World University Subjects Rankings 2017 [ref].

Then we could use the rest of your above text to update the "rankings" section? My sense is that any more detailed info belongs there as opposed to the article lead. SalimJah (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Another way to go would be to drop all rankings from the lead. Keep them all for the "rankings" section. SalimJah (talk) 11:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

SalimJah thanks for your reply, and I can see your point of view. However, I'd remind you of the guideline quoted previously by Robminchin - I suspect that quoting just one ranking, even for the sake of brevity, might not be compatible with guidelines on editorial bias etc.

I guess you could make the argument that Sciences Po is especially known as a place that has educated numerous politicians, diplomats, civil servants etc and, due to that political focus, the politics subject-ranking should feature prominently? I'm not sure though - I'd want to know a) if it's common practice on other university pages to include only one or two rankings and b) if there are admins who'd consider it compatible with guidelines. Toden102 (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think that the statement 'one of France's leading academic institutions’ is what should be in the lead. I think this is a common view of Sciences Po and that there are actually loads of sources to support it. As a reference I’d go with chapter 2 of this source ([53]) plus possibly this source ([54]).

@SalimJah Regarding the statement ‘one of the leading institutions in Europe’ - for now I’m not convinced. It’s quite possibly true on many metrics (e.g. extremely prominent alumni, rankings, partnerships with places like Oxford, LSE, Columbia, etc) yet it’s also true that 'leading institution in Europe' isn't what the sources seem to be saying explicitly. As I noticed DGG said elsewhere on the talk page - it doesn't necessarily need to be said, since instead of talking about a university's standing in explicit terms it can be more effective to let the facts speak for themselves :) Toden102 (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It's worth reading the guidance at WP:PRESTIGE. In a nutshell, it is almost always better to follow a policy of "show, don't tell" when it comes to whether a particular institution is "leading", "prestigious", "elite", etc., particularly as such statements are always, by their very nature, opinions target than facts. With that in mind, I would suggest reordering the paragraph to start with the sentence describing the alumni. Having said that "seven of the last eight French presidents, 12 foreign heads of state or government, a former United Nations Secretary-General, and a number of CEOs of France's 40 largest companies" attended Sciences Po, there is no need to then state explicitly that it is prestigious – the facts speak for themselves.

With respect to rankings, if any are to be mentioned then my feeling is that balance requires sufficient detail for a reader to see how three institution is ranked generally. I don't feel the overall ranking is particularly useful for a specialised institution such as Sciences Po, but the social sciences faculty rankings are. Alternatively, the rankings could be omitted altogether.

With all of this in mind, I suggest the following for the whole paragraph:

Many of Sciences Po's alumni are notable public figures, including seven of the last eight French presidents, 12 foreign heads of state or government, a former United Nations Secretary-General, and a number of CEOs of France's 40 largest companies. The institution has, however, been criticised (together with other prominent grandes écoles) for creating an oligarchy of disconnected leaders. In terms of rankings, Sciences Po was placed 62nd in the world (and third in France) for social sciences in 2017 by the QS rankings but outside of the top 100 by the Times Higher Education 2016 rankings, and is not included in the top 200 by the Academic Ranking of World Universities. It is particularly known for politics and international studies, where it was ranked fourth globally in the QS World University Subjects Rankings 2017.

If not wanted, the last two sentences, where the rankings are described, could be left of. Robminchin (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I would also note that "a number of CEOs of France's 40 largest companies" is a very weak statement that doesn't really help advertise Sciences Po's status. My thoughts on seeing a statement like that are that the "number" must be fairly low! Giving the actual number (six according to the alumni section) would be better. Robminchin (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Launebee I don’t accept your argument regarding the book link (ch2 here [55]). It’s true the exact wording ‘leading institution’ doesn’t feature, but the chapter explicitly describes Sciences Po as one of France’s four most well-regarded ‘great schools’ (along with ENS, HEC and Polytechnique) and discusses how these institutions have a particular aura rooted in their history, selectivity etc. It strikes me as simply pedantic to argue that this that removed from the statement that it’s ‘one of France’s leading academic institutions’. Toden102 (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

You say yourself "regarded", so only reputation, not a fact. And it’s a reputation among great schools, not in general in France among academic institutions. --Launebee (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, the source wasn’t dealing with objective fact, but the point is that it sums up a particular view of Sciences Po that is found in various other sources.

On your other point: both admirers and critics of the great schools tend to regard them as among the most dominant academic institutions in French higher education ([56][57]) I don’t see how this reputation could somehow apply ‘only’ to grandes ecoles and not to the academic institutions in general. Toden102 (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The sources mentionned by Kautilya3 are obviously ads from partner universities, they don’t count at all. I added a new survey following Robminchin proposition. --Launebee (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

To give a bit more background to my partial support above for the option in Survey 4, it seems to me that rankings fall in a different category from alumni. Rankings are opinions based on analysis of data, there are differing opinions on how universities are ranked. While it is a fact that a certain opinion on how a university ranks is held by, e.g., QS, it is still necessary for balance to state all of the significant opinions (e.g. THE and ARWU) or to leave out any statement about rankings entirely. Alumni, on the other hand, are facts. It is not a matter of opinion whether "seven of the last eight French presidents" attended Sciences Po. As facts, these have a much stronger claim to be mentioned in the lead than any opinion: indeed WP:PRESTIGE actually recommends the inclusion of notable alumni in university articles as an example of the sort of neutral, verifiable fact that Wikipedia should contain. If the notable alumni lead a reader to decide that an institution is prestigious, then the reader has decided that - not the editor. That is precisely what we are aiming for with Wikipedia: presenting facts and letting the reader decide what they mean. Robminchin (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

All rankings are not the same. They are not necessarily based on opinions. Most rankings combine opinions and objective data. Some rankings favour large multi-disciplinary institutions whereas some don't. Some emphasize quantity and others don't. We should really be discusssing what rankings are appropriate for a small specialised institution like Sciences Po, and include those, irrespective of whether it ranks high or low among them.

QS ranking is pretty good. It used to be the original agency that did the ranking for the Times Higher Education (THE) and then it branched out on its own. It measures teaching as well as research, alumni reputation as well as academic peer reputation. So it is a balanced ranking. While the main University ranking table favours the larger institutions, the subjct tables can bring out the specialist institutions. Since Sciences Po is a small specialist institution, it is the subject tables that are relevant for it. Political Sciences being the home subject of Sciences Po, its ranking there should be definitely included. I am willing to consider arguments for why the Social Sciences table might also be appropriate. After THE switched to Thomson-Reuters, the first ranking they produced was quite weird (because of some funny statistical weighting formula they came up with but nobody could understand). They supposedly fixed it later, but they still do some non-standard things. As for ARWU, our article says in the lead itself that it undermines humanities and teaching focus. So, I don't see why it should be mentioned at all in the lead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Those are convincing arguments, Kautilya3. So, back to version 2 above? If that sounds good, we can change the word "leading" to "most influential" in order to address Robminchin's point that the former has too much of a laudable connotation. Would that also suit you, Toden102? We can also include one well chosen social sciences rankings together with the politics and international relations one, in order to appropriately reflect Sciences Po's specialized academic focus. Does that seem like a plan? SalimJah (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that not all rankings are the same, but all rankings are subjective combinations of objective data and thus are all opinion. Both QS and THE have their methodology audited for statistical validity. I would disagree that there is such a thing as "non-standard" when it comes to ranking universities internationally, because everyone does it differently. It's not possible to say that QS or THE or whatever other ranking is 'better' than another and so should be the one used - as with all occasions where differing experts have differing opinions, all should be stated. Sciences Po is (according to QS) a medium-sized (not small) institution that has courses in both the social sciences and humanities. As such, picking out just the social sciences is already a stretch but recognises that this is where it is concentrated. Giving only the subject ranking for politics would be cherry-picking unless most of the students at Sciences Po are studying politics - giving that it has seven subjects ranked by QS, this seems unlikely. The social sciences faculty-level ranking is far more relevant.

All of the global rankings are research-focused and have problems with arts and humanities (due to the predominant publication mode being books rather than papers, which are not captured by bibliometrics). If you object to this, you should support excluding all rankings from the lead here. It has generally been agreed that QS, THE and ARWU are the most influential rankings globally, and so are the three that are normally given. All can be criticised - ARWU doesn't correct for institutional size, while THE and QS use surveys of reputation that are of dubious validity - but all have their defenders. Using just one of them means that we, as editors, are making a choice as to which is valid (personally, I would toss ARWU), when we should be leaving it up to the reader to make that decision. Any reader who is interested can click through to the articles on QS, THE and ARWU and work out for themself which they want to trust. Our job as editors is to give the reader the information and let them make their mind up. To quote (yet again) WP:PRESTIGE: "Rankings should be neutrally worded without modifiers or disclaimers. Similarly, do not exclude notable rankings simply because they are inconveniently low or you disagree with their methodology. An article about a university is not the appropriate venue to debate the merits of various rankings' respective methodologies. If a reader wants to know about the methodology, they can follow the citation that should already accompany any ranking or the wikilink to the Wikipedia article describing that ranking in more detail."

This is the accepted community standard for reaching a neutral point of view. Giving just one ranking will make this article non-NPOV. Robminchin (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

SalimJah I see where you’re coming from but I’m still not quite convinced: I lean more towards Robminchin's position as expressed above. Do you or Kautilya3 know of precedents from other university pages where it’s been deemed acceptable to include particular rankings while leaving out others? Or guidelines other than the ones currently cited that suggest it’s ok? If so then I’d consider changing my position.

‘One of the most France’s most influential academic institutions’ sounds reasonable to me. What I think the last part of the lead ought to convey is that SP has a particularly noteworthy reputation, as it’s educated such a large share of significant people in politics, government, diplomacy etc throughout France’s recent history (for better and for worse). A sentence or two to express that, paired with the sentence on criticism is what is needed in my view Toden102 (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I have never worked on any academic institution articles before, but I have been looking at some of them since this discussion started. London School of Economics is perhaps the closest to Sciences Po in terms of specialisation, and it does mention all the rankings. I agree that trying to figure out which rankings are the most appropriate for Sciences Po would be too much WP:OR. Let us leave it to the readers. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm at least partly responsible for LSE mentioning all the rankings so this isn't a completely independent example. Robminchin (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Robminchin: Don’t you think putting alumni summary in the lead is original research? --Launebee (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Not if it is summarising what is in the body of the article. I am a bit concerned here that the text says "the last five French presidents" while the lead says "seven of the last eight French presidents" – this needs to be rectified, but doesn't affect the general principle. If five presidents of France are listed as alumni in the article, saying "Sciences Po counts 5 presidents of France among its alumni" would not be OR as this is basic arithmetic, which is specifically allowed under WP:NOR: "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations." Robminchin (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that discrepancy, altered it in the article. Toden102 (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

For the purpose of finding a neutral wording in the lead, since there is a disagreement on some sections but not available in what I consider more neutral wording, I give them here for information:

Alain Lancelot, director of Sciences Po from 1987 to 1996, was investigated for financial mismanagement by the French Court of Audit.

Since 1997, the institution has been hit by a number of scandals.

Descoing, president from 1997 to 2012, had been criticized for offering large sums of money (through salary rise, free accommodation, etc.) to diverse members of staff, included his wife, in spite of the fact that Sciences Po in partly stately funded.

Descoing was found dead in his luxury hostel in a Manhattan luxury hotel room during a trip to represent Sciences Po in New York, police thought the cause of death would be an overdose linked to his controversial lifestyle, the final coronary report concluded to natural death but his energy the day of the death and the missing phones and computer have raised suspicion.

In February 2012, it has been found that an inspector of the French Court of Audit, in charge of investigating the financial behaviour of Sciences Po, was in the same time employed by Sciences Po.

In October 2012, the French Court of Audit castigated the serious financial mismanagement in Sciences Po. It strongly denounced the large use of public money for personal use of the staff, the tax evasions, the absence of doing of contractual work by most of the lecturers, the infringement of financial regulation on public works contract, the absence of any control from the State, and even the rise of 33% of the public funding in the last 5 years. Sciences Po has also been accused to prevail results over morals. The French Court of Audit has appealed to the public attorney for bringing a lawsuit for some of these facts. Hervé Crès the interim manager of Sciences Po (now head of the doctoral school of Sciences Po) has promised to change while preserving its identity

In November 2012, Hervé Crès has been dismissed by the government, but he sought to president of Sciences Po anyway, saying that Alain Lancelot and Richard Descoings have been found guilty too, but it doesn’t matter for what concerns the presidency of Sciences Po.

In July 2015, the public attorney sued Jean-Claude Casanova, the head of the institution which was supposed to supervise Sciences Po, for a trial before the Court of Financial and Budgetary Discipline. Sciences Po, with Frédéric Mion as new director, tried to defend Casanova. The Court of Financial and Budgetary Discipline eventually found Casanova guilty, but sentenced him with leniency because the procedures had some part of regularity and because it wasn’t customary in Sciences Po to follow all the financial rules.

References

 I give you also the former version of the criticism part (which needed to be worked on this time, it was done but with a lot of non neutral rewording) :

Due to its prominent alumni, its selectivity and its history of providing candidates for admission to the École nationale d'administration, it is seen in France as an elite institution. A Sciences Po-run poll suggested that 93% of alumni would recommend the school.

However, it is criticised, as well as the École nationale d'administration, for creating in France an oligarchy of disconnected with reality, '...blinkered, arrogant and frequently incompetent people.' In 2012, a statement from student representatives at Sciences Po Lille accused Sciences Po Paris of receiving a disproportionate amount of state funding relative to other Political Studies Institutes elsewhere in France. The statement alleged that, while Sciences Po Paris was receiving €8,700 of government funds per student per year, Sciences Po Lille was receiving just €2,600.

Critics give the school the nickname of "Sciences Pipeau" (pronounced and sometimes spelled "Sciences Pipo" and meaning "Science Fake"). Sciences Po is accused of being a "fake" school, giving access to a professional network but with no proper intellectual education nor actual expertise given.

The sociologist Nicolas Jounin, alumnus of Sciences Po, stated that the school is an "intellectual imposture", since it gives no actual education but only delivers degrees giving access to a network of unfairly privileged ruling class, and that it is a "financial hold-up".

The prominent lawyer and academic Gilles Devers criticized "Sciences Pipeau", first, for draining public money to lecturers paid far more than university lecturers but for only 30% of their teaching duties, and sometimes no teaching would be done, second, to be the "base of the conservatism, and the mold of the molluscs that make the public elite" where "dissenting ideas are only admitted if they strengthen the system".

Sciences Po is also nicknamed "Sciences Pipo" by students.

Sciences Po has also been accused of being unduly helped by the media. "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. "Sciences-Po is under-criticized," analyzes a professor, for whom the problem exceeds the stake of the media coverage of its director. Former students are unlikely to criticize it. Those who teach there have no interest, and not necessarily the urge, to do so. Those who are not there can hope to be there one day." Ariane Chemin stated in 2013 that, because most of journalists are coming from Sciences Po, the school has an undue good publicity.

References

--Launebee (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Use of sources etc. in 'Reputation and criticism' section

Hi everyone! I wanted to raise the topic of the section entitled ‘Reputation and Criticism’. I definitely think criticisms of Sciences Po need to be talked about in the article, but I think it needs a major re-write, since it currently includes some rather contentious things that I don't think are adequately backed up. Some examples:

• The section says ‘Sciences Po is accused of being a "fake" school’ that doesn’t provide ‘proper intellectual education’. This is a pretty strong statement, and I don’t think it’s adequately supported by the sources used. One of the sources is simply a link to an entire book, not even a quotation or even chapter from it (that's this reference [58]). Another source is a very short blogpost that actually praises teaching at Sciences Po as ‘intellectually and culturally interesting’([59]). Another source is a short interview with an undergraduate at Sciences Po who has praise for the school as well as criticisms([60]). Another source is a blogpost from the website ‘Contrepoint’ that criticizes both the ENA and Sciences Po for educating a class of leaders who are too homogenous and conventional in their thinking([61]) – I think this is quite a common criticism of France’s grande ecole system so should be mentioned; however, that's quite different to claiming that Sciences Po is a “fake” university.
• Currently a whole paragraph is devoted to a single blogpost by a man named Giles Devers([62]). This blogpost is written in a provocative and polemical style – I wouldn’t say it’s scholarly research or objective journalism by any conventional standard. Surely it’s currently given undue weight?

@Kautilya3: you seem to be well-informed on this, so if it's ok can I ask your opinion? Are there guidelines on using personal blogs as evidence? Could the way some of the sources are currently presented be considered ‘giving undue weight’ etc? Toden102 (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

No, blogs are not reliable sources. As I said erlier sources should be reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Blogs are either unpublished or self-published, and so they don't qualify. Even published opinion columns in newspapers have to be treated as "opinions" and attributed to the writers (see WP:NEWSORG). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

：：Thanks, that's good to know. Unless there are better sources to support them, I think it makes sense that those bits aren't included in the article.Toden102 (talk) 07:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Not at all, Kautilya3 says that it cannot be used as source, but it can be used as personnal opinion if the author is notable. --Launebee (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Toden102: I am grateful for the time you spent on this reference review. :) I agree. The material on criticisms is mostly legitimate, but it needs more context, as well as a major rewrite in terms of sourcing and tone. The material on scandals sometimes reads like an indictment, however. It needs to be appropriately trimmed and rewritten. SalimJah (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies, guys! I think you both made sensible points. I don't object to these sources remaining in the article, provided adequate context is given to ensure it's clear these are personal opinions as expressed on blogs etc. As it is, I don't think that's made clear enough in the article. I also agree the language needs to be toned down.

I haven't looked at the section on Financial Scandals in detail but I'll try to go over it properly in the next few days. Toden102 (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The scandal section looks like an indictement because Sciences Po has been indicted a lot by justice. Every source has to be related in a neutral way. So of course criticism will look "bad", and praises "good". About Kautilya3, the provocative style is obvious, but because he is an important academic, it should stay as it is. Launebee (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The author of that blogpost was expressing a personal opinion on something that is not his area of expertise (he's a specialist in medical law). It was not an academic piece of work - to be honest it comes across as more of a rant (e.g. phrases like 'Tu comptes rembourser quand, mon Jean-Claude ?' and mockingly referring to the higher education minister as the 'Sinistre de l’Enseignement'). I have no particular objection it being mentioned but there just isn't any good reason to devote an entire paragraph to it.Toden102 (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Concerning the debate everyone is having, consider the words of Solomon: "Whoever corrects a scoffer gets himself abuse, and he who reproves a wicked man incurs injury." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.148.37 (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Use of sources etc. in the 'Financial Scandals' section

Hi again! I had look at some of the sources for the ‘financial scandals’ section. I think it needs a re-write as currently it contains a lot of odd phrasing, grammatical errors and sources presented in a very partial way. I wanted to highlight these bits as especially problematic:

• The following line: ‘it has been found that an inspector of the French Court of Audit, in charge of investigating the financial behaviour of Sciences Po, was in the same time employed by Sciences Po.’

A really important detail has been omitted: the conflict of interest was resolved because the inspector in question, Jean Picq (who had also been a visiting professor at Sciences Po), agreed that he wouldn’t participate in the Court's deliberations concerning Sciences Po. The source is a Mediapart article ([63]) and the author also notes that there’s no evidence Picq behaved in a compromising way (‘Rien ne prouve aujourd’hui que Jean Picq... a commis une faute et agi contre l’intérêt de la Cour’). To be honest, when I read the source it seemed like a bit of a non-story since the problem was quickly resolved, and in fact it looks like none of the big French news sites bothered reporting it – surely needs to be presented in a more balanced way?

• It’s stated that the Court of Audit “denounced” Sciences Po for “the tax evasions” but this appears to be unsourced as there’s no mention of tax evasion at all in the source referenced ([64]). The allegations seemed to mainly be to do with opaque remuneration procedures for staff, extravagant expenses claims, excessive salary for the director etc. However, there’s no mention of tax evasion.

• The last sentence asserts ‘The Court of Financial and Budgetary Discipline eventually found Casanova guilty, but sentenced him with leniency because… it wasn’t customary in Sciences Po to follow all the financial rules.’

I think this has been simplified to the point that it’s misleading. Here is what seems to have happened according to the source ([65]): Jean-Claude Casanova was president of the Foundation Nationale pour Sciences Politiques (FNSP), which manages Sciences Po. During this time he made a funding decision relating to the «mission lycee » project without consulting the FNSP’s administrative council. Since public money was involved, the French government’s Court of Audit later looked into this, and concluded that while neither the law nor the FNSP’s regulations had been broken, Casanova technically should have consulted the council according to its own procedures. However, they also accepted that Casanova had considered this particular decision a standard budget modification, which wasn’t commonly something he had to consult them on. In the end the Court fined him 1500 euros. So it appears this was a specific case of a technical breach of procedure . However, that’s quite far removed from the claim that there was a culture of breaking financial laws at Sciences Po and I don’t think the incident has been presented in a balanced way in the article. So much context is missing.

@Kautilya3: sorry to ask your opinion again. In my view these three bits in particular haven't presented the sources fairly – is there a process for getting them re-written? Since the page is protected do admins need to get involved? Sorry for quite a long post! Toden102 (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The only procedure is to make an edit request for the admins to do as described at WP:FULL. However, they are unlikely to do it because the issues are not egregious errors of some sort. Better to wait until the protection lifts. Meanwhile, you can see if any other editors have objections. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! SalimJah You mentioned in one of the other threads that the 'scandals' section sounded rather too indictment-like, and I'm tempted to agree now I've looked at the sources more. Do you have any thoughts on the presentation of the sources etc? Toden102 (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for this review, Toden102! :) We all agree, I think, that both the "criticisms" and "scandals" sections must stay. The majority of the sources in the article as it currently stands are tied to those sections, so we have a lot of material to start from. So I'd simply do what you generously started to undertake: review the sources, figure out what they really say, adjust the content and tone of the sections accordingly, and drop the ones that are not related to the subject matter. Moving forward, I also suggest that Launebee refrains from citing too many sources in his arguments. If those are not precisely tied to the arguments made in the text, the only result is to obfuscate the conversation and create additional review work for all of us. SalimJah (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, lots of reviewing to do - I'll try to do some more at some point. To be fair, I think the sources used in the 'scandals' bit are generally good quality, largely being articles from respected news sites. The problem for me is that these sources have been presented in a rather disjointed and even misleading way, often with important details left out. I think it's a slightly different situation to the 'criticisms' section where my feeling is that many of the sources themselves are of questionable value. Toden102 (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

No-one’s replied for a while so unless there are objections I’ll make some amendments at some point - things discussed previously plus these bits:

• During World War II (1939–45)… Sciences Po's board of directors before the war.

The source ([66]) only mentions Petain once in passing and doesn’t say anything about ‘ambiguous behavior.’ I think it makes sense to remove these kind of assertions unless there are sources which can support and clarify them.

• Since 1997, the institution has been hit by a number of scandals.

Should be re-worded for clarity – the scandals in question concerned the leadership of Richard Descoings, whose tenure began in 1997, but that’s very different to scandals hitting ‘since 1997’ (they actually happened about a decade and a half after this).

• Descoings was found dead… the missing phones and computer have raised suspicion.

Very vague. Unclear what the paragraph contributes to our understanding of financial scandals. The main article on Descoings discusses his death so personally I feel it would be best to leave it out here.

• Re-wording of the last and third-to-last paragraphs to better reflect the sources. Toden102 (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Those are all reasonable points. Thank you for your work, Toden102! SalimJah (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The source does not say that the scandals are linked to Descoings, they continued afterwards. His death was on a trip to represent Sciences Po, it is directly linked to SP. Please don’t delete sources for what is after. --Launebee (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I reintroduced the reference to Descoings' death (seems notable) and reworded the sentence so that it is now clear that the Sciences Po "scandals" were notably but not only linked to Descoings. For the other claims, Toden102 has conduced a thorough review of the references, and has removed the bits that weren't appropriated sourced. If you disagree with his assessment, could you please provide a list of the points which you think should be added back together with some supporting references (please refer to specific pages / lines)? Thanks! SalimJah (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

SalimJah , I guess I didn’t feel it was particularly relevant to scandals at Sciences Po specifically so decided to remove it. However, the new wording is definitely an improvement and makes the link much clearer. Happy to leave it if that’s the consensus :) Toden102 (talk) 07:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Toden and you are obviously rewording the sources in a non neutral way, and deleting sources you don’t like, but, since you keep edit-warring, we will deal with that later. --Launebee (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Launebee, not at all! I’ve set out where I felt the sources hadn’t been presented fairly. I waited over a week after first raising the issue before making changes but no-one had written to object at that point so I went ahead. If you object then please let me know which bits and I’m happy to discuss it :) Toden102 (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Sciences Po campus location

The current version of the Sciences Po lead reads:

"Its main campus encircles Boulevard Saint Germain in the 7th arrondissement of Paris."

I understand that Launebee wants to delete the "encircles Boulevard Saint Germain" part (described as an "attempt to associate Sciences Po with great things"). From my side, I feel like it makes the campus location precise (in accordance with the campus map), while keeping the statement short and appropriate for an article lead. What do people think? I'd be nice to reach consensus on this relatively easy to solve issue. SalimJah (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems like appropriate information for a lead to me. The mention of Boulevard St Germain is fine, but maybe there's better phrasing than 'encicles'? E.g. 'Its main campus is spread across a collection of buildings around Boulevard St Germain in the 7th arrondissement of Paris' or something like that. Toden102 (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, "encircles" is proper English and conveys the same meaning as your sentence above, but in a more concise way. SalimJah (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I would say "encircles" is a synonym of "encloses" or "surrounds", which isn't quite right here. From the map (link posted above), Toden102's suggestion seems a more accurate reflection, but the wording could possibly be made more concise. Maybe simply "Its main campus is around Boulevard St Germain in the 7th arrondissement of Paris". Robminchin (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Robminchin is right about the English, but anyway the main campus is rue Saint-Guillaume. The other around bd SG are secondary ones. Mentioning rue Saint Guillaume is WP:NOR from a map. No source is saying SP is principally around Boulevard SG, but so many are calling SP "la rue Saint-Guillaume", it main campus and here for example two sources which are explicitely saying "27 rue saint Guillaume, le siège de Sciences Po" [67] [68] You can see in the first link that the antisfascist tags were put on the "façade" of SP, rue Saint-Guillaume. --Launebee (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The map clearly shows a number of buildings (giving addressees for 10) on various different streets around bd S-G and is described as the "Campus de Paris". What is on rue S-G may be the main building and the administrative address, but it's clearly not the whole of the main campus. Describing what a map says is not OR, any more than describing what any other source says.

If you look at other articles on universities with distributed buildings around an area, it is normal to describe the area rather than giving the address of the main building. The LSE is said to be in Clare Market, not on Houghton Street (where the Old Building is located), for example. The second reference refers explicitly to creating an Oxford-like campus: if you were to insist Oxford University was located on Wellington Square rather than around Oxford you would look ridiculous. Robminchin (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Robminchin. Plus, this sentence is describing SP’s Paris campus in relation to its regional campuses in other cities. So even if the Rue St Guillaume building is more famous, we're describing the Paris campus as a whole so it makes sense to say ‘located around Bvd St Germain’ or words to that effect. Toden102 (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you everyone. Seems like we have a consensus for "Its main campus is located around Boulevard Saint-Germain in the 7th arrondissement of Paris". If so, I'll go ahead and implement the change. SalimJah (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)