Talk:Paris-Panthéon-Assas University

Good reputation

"Assas likes to think of itself as a renown law and business university"

Assas is far from being a premier business university. No significant representative of the business community, in France or abroad, graduated from Paris II. Or else, this claim needs to be supported.

IMHO the French counterpart of Ivy League universities (for law and business) is rather Sciences Po, ENA or "Parisian" business schools. Apokrif 02:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

None of the institutions you cite deliver law degrees. I would say the phrase "likes to think of itself" balances the statement. No one disputes Assas' No.1 spot for law, it is regarded as the continuance of the Law Faculty of Paris.

"None of the institutions you cite deliver law degrees."

"Assas likes to think of itself as France's Harvard: it is the country's premier law and business university, and a breeding ground for politicians."

Wrong.

Regarding business: Nobody recognizes Assas as a premier business school in the country, would it be for the simple reason that Assas is not a business school stricto sensu, but only has an econ department. And it does not hold comparison to, for instance, Dauphine, job-wise and prestige-wise. Also, the comparison to Harvard does not stand: Harvard only offers graduate business degree and has no undergraduate business school; also, Harvard Business School has continuously been ranked the first business school, Assas hasn't.

Regarding law: Assas is without contest the first law school of the nation, prestige wise. But here again, the comparison with Harvard is not warranted: Harvard has constantly been ranked the second (to Yale) law school over the years. The phrasing needs to be changed. Also, "likes to think of itself" does not balance the statement to the extent that the following statement "it is the country's premier law..." eliminates the internal focus.

Again, Assas is not a breeding ground for politicians; on the reverse, Sciences Po and more so ENA are. Stop trolling please, nobody is gonna think higher of Assas based on a wikipedia page.

http://www.sciences-po.fr/formation/master_scpo/mentions/carrieres_juridiques.htm http://www.sciences-po.fr/formation/master_scpo/mentions/droit_economique.htm http://www.essec.fr/formations-ecole-commerce-paris/masteres-specialises/mastere-droit-affaires-internationales-management Granted, they do not offer a complete program in law as universities do, but I'd say that thee schools are seen, in law and business professions, as X or ECP are seen in engineering. Members of the Conseil d'Etat, who hold the highest legal positions in public service, generally come from ENA (which teaches public law even if, like most public service schools, it does not issue "degrees" to French students) while many students of Ecole de la magistrature students come from Sciences-Po.Apokrif 10:21, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

None of these are law degrees. They are political science degrees or French business school "Masteres" (which is not a French national degree) with an emphasis on law. They do not entitle you to take the bar exam for instance. These schools have no authority with regard to law at all. With regard to business, HEC, ESSEC and ESCP are the best (in that order). Dauphine and Assas would come afterward (in that order). Science-Po is the best path to join the ENA, but is worthless on its own, you will get nowhere with a single degree from this school. The majority of ENM (Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature) students come from Assas. The ENA is the best path to join the Conseil d'Etat (a very tiny group of administrative law magistrates), mostly because no law degree is required for some positions, this carreer is heavily political and your ENA buddies will help you. Nonetheless, the majority of Conseil d'Etat auditeurs went through regular law school, and I do believe that most of the C.E. ENA group did both. Outside of this tiny branch, the ENA is useless for law (albeit prestigious). In sum, you need a law degree to be lawyer (although the Conseil d'Etat does not require one for some positions, and the ENM exam is open to ScPo and ENS grads), and none of the institutions you cite deliver one. Although an additional degree from the schools you cite is well regarded (and, indeed, more and more necessary for the most sought after jobs), it is seen as a bonus, and not your main degree (not getting into Sc-Po or Essec when you have graduated from Assas is seen as has an abject failure). While there are alternative paths, as you underscored, the "royal" one is throught Assas. A study observed that over half of "magic circle lawyers" graduated from Assas. I'll look for it on the internet. Sprotch 15:30, 21 Mar 2005 (GMT)

Did you find the study you were looking for?

Here it is:

As a bonus, Nouvel observateur ranking: http://www.ulb.ac.be/polytech/smana/NOUV_OB/Observateur.htm

Legalease statistics, made on the basis of a survey of Magic Circle Firms in Paris:

86,8% des maîtrises ont été effectuées à Paris :

46,1% à Paris II Assas,

17,9% à Paris I Sorbonne,

11,2% à Paris X Nanterre,

5,8% à Paris XI Sceaux,

2,9% à Paris V Malakoff,

1,7% à Paris IX Dauphine,

0,9% à Paris XII Créteil,

0,3% à Paris XIII Villetaneuse.

13,2% des maîtrises ont été effectuées en province :

2,6% à Montpellier,

2,3% à Aix-Marseille,

1,7% à Rennes,

1,2% à Lyon,

0,9% à Dijon,

0,9% à Nancy,

0,9% à Toulouse,

0,6% à Lille,

0,6% à Rouen,

1,8% ailleurs (Bordeaux, Caen, Clermont-Ferrand, Grenoble, Poitiers, Strasbourg).

Répartition des maîtrises par domaines de droit :

37,8% sont des maîtrises en droit des affaires,

16,7% des maîtrises en droit des affaires et fiscalité,

24,6% des maîtrises en droit privé,

6,5% des maîtrises en droit privé, mention carrières judiciaires,

9,9% des maîtrises en droit international (toutes maîtrises à vocation internationale, y compris les doubles maîtrises droit français/allemand et français/anglais de Paris I Sorbonne, la MSG DAI de Paris IX Dauphine ou le DEJA de Paris X Nanterre),

2,9% des maîtrises en droit public,

1,5% des maîtrises en droit social.

No quotes supports this statement; one could say that Dauphine holds a reputation comparable to some business grandes écoles, and only at the master's level; but there being now law grande école, and Assas not being famous for its econ department at all, the comparison does not stand.

This looks like unsourced POV. Apokrif 12:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Your statements seem unsourced and POV as well. Please evidence them.

"For these reasons it has several peculiarities: while all of France's universities are notoriously understaffed and underbudgeted, Assas gets all the money it needs from the Education Ministry"

This too. Apokrif 12:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

One more ranking: http://www.smbgrecrutement.com/2_classement/6.html

and the full rankings: http://www.smbgrecrutement.com/2_classement/1_1_classement.php?menu=2

Assas tops every subject for which it offers courses.

Wrong; in the ranking you provided, Assas only tops the Droit des Affaires and Droit Social section; on a side note, this ranking has no standard value, such as US news or Financial Times ranking, since very little recruiter are aware of its existence and students do not take it into consideration when making educational choices. Or please, find support fur such claim.

1. The above claim is correct, Assas tops every subject for which it offers courses.

2. An unanimous and continuous stream of rankings cannot be ignored. The SMBG survey is, notably, based on a survey of recruiters. This is further evidenced by the composition of the more prestigious firms.

No it isn't please, check again these websites. Assas does not top every subject for which it offers courses: some of its graduate programs are not even listed. There is no unanimous stream of rankings; SMBG ranking is marginally praised (indeed, only by students in search of lauding of their education). The alleged composition of the most prestigious is completely fictitious. It is well known within the legal industry - and the moST prestigious firms since you invoke them - that the most sought after educational background are double and triple formation (sciences po, HEC/ESSEC/ESCP, law degree from ANYWHERE to complete) and even more so American LLMs. A rapid check on the most prestigious law firms websites will evidence this.

I suggest that you conduct more than a rapid check.

Libraries

"they both administer the University Library of the Pantheon"

Do you mean Cujas or Sainte-Geneviève ? Apokrif 18:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cujas is admninistered jointly by Paris 1&2.

So the article should say Cujas, not "library of the Pantheon". Apokrif 12:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed. It seems that official name is Bibliothèque interuniversitaire Cujas.

" which is the largest student library in France"

You're sure? I wonder if it's not Sainte-Geneviève (because it covers more topics than Cujas does). Apokrif 12:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Could be.

GUD

Shouldn't we mention that Assas was (and perhaps still is?) a hotbed of far-right student activism and violence? David.Monniaux 09:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I did mention that Assas was more de droite than most universities in France. It's not a hotbed for anything nowadays. ;) LeoDV 14:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

"and while most of France's universities lean culturally and politically to the left, Assas leans to the right."

All this looks like vague unsourced POV. Apokrif 12:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Faculté de Droit de Paris

Should alumni of the former Law Faculty be included? Assas was founded as its continuations and certainly considers them to be alumni. Le Pen, for instance, has recently been added as an alumni on wikipedia. Should we also include Mitterand and other Paris Law Faculty alumi? Given that Assas is todays incarnation of this Faculty, I would be in favour. Sprotch 08:39, 06 June 2005 (UTC)

---

Assas is not the best

""Assas likes to think of itself as France's Harvard: it is the country's premier law and business university"

No, I don't think so. The Sorbonne and Lyon III are excellent universities as well. Don't forget that only the master degree is excellent. A maitrise, licence ou deug is not something you can be proud of.

These debates are endless. The fact remains that law degrees from this university are better regarded than from any other. But please note the phrase "likes to think of itself", which neutralizes the statement.

Please say who regards them better. Apokrif 12:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Recruiters and students (and as futher evidenced by every ENM and agregation exams) since the University was founded in the early 70s.

besides the Nouvel Obs figures above, could you please cite your sources about what recruiters and students think and what ENM and agreg results are ?

Although individual students might clearly have superior skills and attend any other university, as a whole, the university has consistently been regarded as the best. Please find evidence of the contrary and post it here before imposing your POV on the article.

No, if you want to add info to the article, it's up to you to give the source: Wikipedia:Citing sources . Apokrif 15:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

See list of rankings, all featuring Assas as No.1:
Legalease report quoted above
http://www.ulb.ac.be/polytech/smana/NOUV_OB/Observateur.htm
http://www.smbgrecrutement.com/2_classement/6.html
http://www.smbgrecrutement.com/2_classement/7.html
http://www.smbgrecrutement.com/2_classement/11.html
http://forums.figaro-etudiant.com/view.php?site=figaro&bn=figaro_formation&key=1113522114
--Sprotch 16:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

French law school ranking list is something like Paris 2 then Paris 1 and Paris 10 depending on degrees. (based on Paris top lawfirm representation).

On the note, the last year of Master in law is very selective in most law school (5 to 15 % ish in Paris 1,2,5,10) If a DEUG (or Licence 2) in law isnt a very exiting degree, i think u can be proud of a "maitrise" !

On the "grande école" topic: There is no "grande école" in law ! (same for med school btw). But quite a few students graduated from lawschool own a degree from prestigious schools in others field such as business (HEC, ESSEC, ESC ESCP or IAE of Paris Audencia ...), political sciences (Science po Paris, etc), administration school (ENM - ie école nationale de la magistrature - , ENA - école nationale d'administration -, ENI - ie école nationale des impôts = tax school - ), financial and accounting degrees (DECF, DESCF, ...) and/or sometime multiples Masters in law in differents fields or from differents colleges (one from Paris II and another one from Paris X or a LLM from UK or the US).

see also: http://www.smbgrecrutement.com/2_classement/4.html or http://www.smbgrecrutement.com/2_classement/14.html Note that "IAE" = University (IAE of paris = university Paris I)

About the agregation in law (there is 3: public law, private law and history of the law), its a quite different one: you need a phd to attempt it and ofc almost everyone did law school.

To sum up, the "grande école" summa divisio did not exist at all for law-schools and med-schools. Concerning business schools as mentioned above, university Paris II, Université Paris I (including IAE of Paris) and Paris Dauphine rank in top10.

--meto 06:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Please would the contributor who added the banner explain which section is NPOV. I suspect that it's the laudatory vocabulary. Perhaps it should be removed in favour of a section on "rankings"?

I've created a table. This will allow users to add information as they wish. Codik 23:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fourth Republic?

The section on 'origins' claims the Fifth Republic was founded after 'the tumultuous events of May 1968' which is clearly wrong (it was established in 1958), but I don't really know (or care to research) enough about the actual uni reforms to fix it.It should be a trivial edit for someone who knows about these things. Stuffisthings (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure

On the French Wikipedia, some IP have in the past claimed to be writing for this university, and never in a neutral way[1].

For anyone contributing on this article, never forget to read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

--XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Subsections for academic rankings

Dear Launebee. The general consensus in Wikipedia is to have one category regarding "University rankings", see Harvard University for instance. With that aim, it is suggested to have either just one category for both international and national rankings, or at the most two subcategories for each of them. Let me know your opinion in order to reach a general consensus and avoid edition wars. Sincerely, --Kanon6996 (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

OK done, thanks! --Launebee (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Finally, I checked, and, as in the Panthéon-Sorbonne talk, the "general consensus" you invoke simply doesn't exist. In the Harvard talk page, there is no discussion on that topic. --Launebee (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I did not say "discussion" but consensus. They way articles are creted does not suggests de divisions of the reputation and rankings sections based on the areas, but they are altogether as a whole, in the best cases, making statements based on the name and type of the academic ranking, sentence by sentence. I will encourage to apply that to all Parisian universities without any exception.--Kanon6996 (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

If no agreement through a discussion, you cannot say consensus. A consensus is not something people simply do, they have also to agree on the fact that it is what has to be done. See the definition: [2] --Launebee (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

There is still WP:UNDUE that clearly says that "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects". So two sections to deal with 1 ranking is way too much. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

But 1 It's not minority view 2 it's not a question of ranking but of specialties. And, talking of consensus, in Panthéon-Sorbonne, the QS ranking is much more detailed. --Launebee (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

1 you're true, it's not even a minority view. No press coverage was given to this ranking.

2 consensus can't go against the rules. And there is no consensus about putting that ranking in the article. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Please give real arguments. --Launebee (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

What you want to add to the article is not consensual. Kanon6996 explained it, I explain it again. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This section is on the presentation of subsections. --Launebee (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Recently, User:Launebee has edited the articles Pantheon-Sorbonne University in an downward biased way, and the article Panthéon-Assas University in an upward biased way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.212.115.205 (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

How is it vandalism to give facts with source? To put a logo? Your changing are obvioulsy made in a biased way. --Launebee (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The logo is recent, it was notably used by Eduniversal this year and is from the university website. Why delete Sorbonne university affiliation? Clear vandalism.--Launebee (talk) 11:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Launebee has asked me to have a look at the article and these POV claims. If you find the article to be biased, please state your comments here so that all can agree before getting involved into an edit war. (and PS: don't call each other vandals, they were a Germanic tribe and I'm sure you're not one of them... unless you start behaving like them of course)

I had a look at this edit, and I can't find too much wrong with it. Some snippets:

• Please agree on what needs to go in the infobox. There's a link to the Sorbonne site, and to www.u-paris2.fr. Which one is most accurate, or do both go in?
• "The top law school in France"... the problem here is the word "THE". That's a no-go on Wikipedia. There is no single best university. They can rank highly, people can find them to be the best (add references), but you can't just write THE. So please find a way to reword that piece, and support your statements with references.
• Where did the paragraph on "The establishment of Panthéon-Assas" go to? You don't often get the chance to mention Christian Fouchet in an article, so don't miss out on the opportunity.
• Same comment as on Paris-Assas. What's with the ranking obsession? It's overdone, especially since it mostly seems to be based on Eduniversal. I'm sure Ed is a nice guy, but he shouldn't dominate the article. --Midas02 (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for stepping in! Thank you for adding the orginial name, I am not sure I am the one who deleted that. Note that the multiple adresses' user did not add anything, he just returned to an old version. About your questions, please note that in the summaries of my changings, I explained a lot of things:

• Yes both. My link directs towards the English version of the website. The Sorbonne link is an affiliation.
• OK, I change that, you tell me what you think.
• I moved that paragraph in University of Paris, it is not at all specific to Panthéon-Assas.
• It is because in France, there is no global ranking, they do not like rankings. You have then to show all the specific rankings to "prove" that globally, it has obviously the first place for graduate degrees in law, and the second for economics behind Paris-Dauphine. You can check the French page: it is even more detailed. Here are only the degrees that concerns directly the domain.

Thanks again! --Launebee (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear @Midas02:, dear @C.Fred:,

I do not understand: There is no talk about the biased accusation of biased editing by people refusing to talk, is that not a condition for removing POV? Please note that it was not the second time but the first time I removed the POV, as I wroted in my edit summary. Thank you!

--Launebee (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

User talk:207.237.156.1 is doing clearly biased editing, like before: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pantheon-Sorbonne_University&diff=prev&oldid=708126190 --Launebee (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

No more talk so removing POV banner. (Once again, I did not remove it the first time.) --Launebee (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Rankings

To put it simply, what Launebee claims is just false.

I have been contributing on the French Wikipedia for years, focusing on universities and colleges, and I have never heard of this Eduniversal ranking. I can't find a reliable source about this company either.

More often than not, this university ranks poorly on national rankings. Launebee claims without giving a source the Le Figaro newspaper ranks it on top. Guess what, I can give you 2 ranking by this newspaper saying that

• "université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne et Paris 2 Panthéon-Assas ne se retrouvent qu’aux 10 et 19e places," (Paris 1 and Paris 2 universities only rank 10th and 19th[3]
• Ranking Paris II at the 49th place for its efficiency for students [4].

XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Please verify what you say:

• Eduniversal is well-known (even if you don't use it in French wikipedia), it is often the only national quality ranking, and I precise that it is only according to them when it is the case.
• For Le Figaro, it was there before, not my statement. You only talk about employment (you cut the paragraph which only deals with "taux d’insertion professionnelle"), but all these universities have very narrow rate (93% for Assas, 96% for the first one). You can see that the only columns differ a lot and that Assas is first for two of them and second (in point from Grenoble) for the third.
• Your second ranking is even more specific: it is how much they let go to the next year, i.e. it only means that it is very difficult to have one's exam at Panthéon-Assas (some would say because of the high level of the university), nothing else.

--Launebee (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• To put it simply, Eduniversal, is an obscure website with no notoriety (except by other websites it owns). But please, fell free to prove your point by giving us a source.
• You recognize that none of the rankings provided rank this university very high, that's enought to remove all of the academic boosterism. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Its former name is SMBG and nearly all public universities and private schools refer to it, as well as newspapers, some examples among a lot : www.univ-tours.fr/actualites/classement-eduniversal-smbg-notre-licence-droit-classee-2--496237.kjsp , http://www.iae.univ-poitiers.fr/fr/classement-smbg-2016-six-masters-et-deux-licences-de-liae-de-poitiers-bien-classes , http://www.u-pec.fr/pratiques/universite/actualites/25-masters-de-l-upec-dans-le-classement-smbg-2015-666164.kjsp , http://www.ut-capitole.fr/formations/nos-diplomes/masters/classement-smbg-2015-2-masters-ut1-classes-485006.kjsp , https://www.u-cergy.fr/fr/universite/actualites/classement-eduniversal.html , http://www.formation-continue.dauphine.fr/les-actualites/details-dune-actualite/article/lemba-dauphine-dans-le-top-10-des-mba-eduniversal.html , http://www.decision-achats.fr/Thematique/decideurs-achats-1035/Breves/classement-SMBG-est-seul-classement-que-regardent-etudiants-252500.htm It was used here before I came.
• I never wrote that. I was only talking about your quotes out of context. --Launebee (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

I've just removed -again- false claims in the introduction.

• It was stated that this university "has always been ranked first in law in national rankings", with only one source. As I've shown before, it's far from being true[5][6]. The "good" rankings only come from a shady company with no real notability (press coverage of its rankings ?), and the bad ones are never mentionned.
• It was stated that a "Sorbonne University" was the origin of this university. Too bad, but except on some low quality hoodies sold near the Eiffel Tower, no "Sorbonne University" has ever existed. Only the University of Paris did.

XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

• You just write again what you've already stated above, I have already answered to you. You show nothing and you refuse the discusion by simply saying again the same things without hreading what the others have to say. Please be constructive and stop these disruptive editing. Thanks!
• For Sorbonne, you just had to change this in "colloquialy called "Sorbonne University"". I change it like done elsewhere.

--Launebee (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

And I'll write it again and again, until you start to actually read what I write .

• Again, It's a lie to claim that this university "has always been ranked first in law in national rankings" because a lot of rankings clearly show that it's not true : [7][8][9][10].
• Again, there was no such thing as a "Sorbonne University", not even colloquialy. We are writing an encyclopedia, not selling T-shirts. You chose to put this wording back into the article.

XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Please accept the fact that people read you and even answer you. Please only consider reading the answered that people give to you instead of saying that they didn't read you and writing again the exact same thing. Thanks.

If you say Harvard is first, you talk about quality, not difficulty of exams or people of color's rate, it's obvious. As already explained, the rankings you give are not a global ranking but are very specific.

I've already changed to what others wrote in other articles: La Sorbonne.

--Launebee (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, I will keep it simple :

The introduction says that the university "has always been ranked first in law in national rankings". There is one source, and it doesn't say that. So I'm still waiting for a source to support this claim.

The Law ranking part says that it "was ranked first by several newspapers in France like La Tribune, Le Nouvel Observateur and Le Figaro". There is not even a single source to support the claim, so I'm still waiting for a source.

Only Eduniversal rankings are used, even though it has no notablity in France. There are a lot of other rankings, backed by newspapers, in which the university scores not so well. The only favourable ranking is lenghty used, and the other ones are simply ignored. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

"It's not minority view" is not an argument. Still, I explained why. If no press coverage can be found (independant coverage), then it has no notability. And if so, it has nothing to do in the article.

How can you talk about "no press coverage" when I gave you the list below? (Discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eduniversal )

 :::The universities are indepedent from this entity and the newspaper is independant from this journal. You want more press coverage of Eduniversal / SMBG? Here:

• http://www.lemonde.fr/campus/article/2015/01/13/masteres-un-juste-retour-sur-investissement_4555386_4401467.html
• http://www.leparisien.fr/informations/une-licence-informatique-a-distance-a-l-iut-06-06-2016-5858871.php
• http://www.decision-achats.fr/Thematique/faits-chiffres-1038/Breves/Classement-meilleurs-masters-achats-IAE-Grenoble-arrive-1er-303016.htm
• http://www.letudiant.fr/educpros/enquetes/mastersbooking-fr-enquete-sur-le-business-des-masters.html
• http://www.directgestion.com/sinformer/filactu/27912-formation-immobilieren-espi-1ere-ecole-au-classement-smbg-des-meilleures-licences-immobilieres
• http://www.lyoncapitale.fr/Journal/Communs/Univers/A-table/Actualite/L-Institut-Paul-Bocuse-leader-du-management-international
• http://www.capcampus.com/art-et-creation-481/l-esp-1ere-ecole-privee-d-ile-de-france-au-classement-smbg-2012-2013-des-meilleurs-bachelors-et-licences-en-communication-et-medias-a23251.htm
• http://www.studyrama.com/formations/specialites/comptabilite-gestion-audit/finance-et-audit-quelles-possibilites-en-master-ms-et-101265
• http://etudiant.aujourdhui.fr/etudiant/info/formations-aux-metiers-du-luxe-gare-aux-illusions.html
• http://etudiant.lefigaro.fr/les-news/actu/detail/article/ms-masters-msc-en-tourisme-hospitality-analyses-des-meilleurs-programmes-15593/
• http://etudiant.lefigaro.fr/orientation/trouver-sa-%20%20formation/detail/article/management-de-l-innovation-quel-programme-choisir-16351/

Plenty, plenty, plenty more if you want... And you have the biggest media here: Le Monde, Le figaro, Le parisien...

There is a source for the history of the ranking (one each year so plural).

For the newspapers, it was not from me, as I already told you, but I agree to delete. Hope we'll find an agreement here.

--Launebee (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Which one of these articles actually focuses on the ranking ? It's sometimes mentionned, but it doesn't go further. It's not a press coverage of this ranking.

Again, more than 1 page of rankings coming from the same unkown company.

I've checked one of the other ranking (29). Guess what ? The press article ranks the university 19th by chances of finding a job, and goes on saying that the results are not trustworthy (not a lot of students answered). Still, it says that if you are lucky enought to find a job, you will be well paid. Only one of these elements are in the Wikipedia article. Guess which one .

• Again the claim in the introduction is just a lie and must be removed.
• Again, other rankings also have to be mentionned, even if they are not favorable to this university.
• Again, a minority view such as Eduniversal's must be kept as tiny as possible. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The question is not an info is favorable or not but whether it's relevant.

Want it or not, if Le Monde, Le Figaro, Le Parisien, L'Étudiant, Studyrama, etc., all refer to Eduniversal rankings to know the quality of a degree and have confidence in them, then it's serious and not at all a minority view. And I'm not mentioning all the universities which refer themselves to its rankings.

You already talked about the job finding ranking, and I already answered that with 93 % for Assas and 96 % for the first one, and like you say with the fact that it is approximate numbers, it is not relevant. It is why you don't find it in the Paris 1 page neither, it would be ridiculous.

Anyway, it is a very specific ranking, and, like I say, when we talk about the ranking of a university, we obviously talk about the global quality of education and research, not very specific aspects, like people of color's rate.

For the salary, the differences are huge, and it is clearly an interesting fact for every university.

--Launebee (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

So I had a short look at the QS rankings for Law Schools in and across the entire world. The results I found are; 25. (1 in France) Universite Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne, 51-100. (2 in France) Sciences Po, and 101-150. (3 and 4 in France) Universite Pantheon-Assas and Universite de Strasbourg. First in the world is of course Harvard Law School. That said, it's academic reputation for Law is marked 71.9/100 whereas Sciences Po sits at 69.3/100. Sorbonne again comes first at 84.1/100. All of this info comes from here. I had to use QS as ARWU doesn't even mention Science Po or Paris II - though it does have Paris I at around 401-500 and Paris 6 at 39 - though this is across all subjects. Comparatively, LLM Guide for Europe put's Pantheon-Assas in 2, with Sorbonne-Assas in 1, while Sciences PO is 12. This comes from here. In any case, other rankings don't put Pantheon-Assas in first, but, do put it towards the top in Law. Still, at best second to Pantheon-Sarbonne. Adding to this our, non-neutral, article on Pantheon-Sorbonne University also declares itself first in France for law; Law & Legal Studies: 20th (1st in France). Mr rnddude (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: You are right and it is what is stated in the article. You are talking about ranking, and, indeed, the article says that PA is first in national ranking, but not in international ranking (which deal only with few French universities, France is not their priority). It is different to PA called everywhere the top law school of France, as the sources show. --Launebee (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I may have misphrased or over explained it to the point of causing confusion. QS and LLM put Pantheon-Sarbonne as first in France and Pantheon-Assas as third and second respectively. That would by definition make Pantheon-Sarbonne the top school and Pantheon-Assas one of the top schools. Though, all rankings are subjective and I am not of any particular familiarity with schooling in France. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude:The article does not currently says that PA is the top law school, but is seen as such, and you can see all the serious soures that call it such.

By the way, LLM guide only ranks with popularity on its website, and you can see that the first one in France is PA (SAILW is a school from PA). https://llm-guide.com/most-popular/worldwide . But I am not sure it is worth mentioning. France has its own system, it is why it suits ill with international rankings, eg based on English‑speaking papers and quotes. But you can see that the well‑known Eduniversal ranking is clearly rating PA first (see references in the article).

--Launebee (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Panthéon-Assas University has always been ranked first in law in national rankings - then perhaps something has been lost in translation. Perhaps a rewrite; Panthéon-Assas University is (considered/seen as) the top law school in national rankings. In other words, if we take Eduniversal as an example; Eduniversal ranks Panthéon-Assas University as the (top/first) law school in French national rankings. Or something to similar effect. You can also add other sources and name them as well; e.g. "Edunivsal, ABC123, and DEF456 rank Panthéon-Assas University as the top ...". Without specifying who, the blanket statement suggests that all sources feel this way, when of course, they wouldn't. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Ranking is different that having the nickname "top law school", it is not seen as such in national rankings, but in all newspapers. However, indeed, the formulation of the sentence on ranked first should be more precise. --Launebee (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, you won't find any newspaper ranking this university at the top of their rankings :

• Le Point in 2011 : 15th [11]
• Le Figaro : 19th ("université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne et Paris 2 Panthéon-Assas ne se retrouvent qu’aux 10 et 19e places," (Paris 1 and Paris 2 universities only rank 10th and 19th[12]) and {{tq|49th (for its efficiency for students [13]).
• L'Etudiant : 52th in 2014[14]

I have already given these references. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

And I already told you that these are not global education rankings but rankings of specific criterias: professional insertion for your first link (with broadly everyone having the same result), easiness to succeed at exams for the three other ones. These are not at all general review of the university or of degrees. --Launebee (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

And Eduniversal is only ranking B.A. and M.A. Degrees. So according to your standards, there is not a single "global education ranking"(©Launebee) that actually qualifies this university as the best in France.

I would like to know what other contributors think of this claim : @Mr rnddude, SalimJah, SashiRolls, and MePhisto: what's your opinion on this specific point ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It is not my standards, it is simply sources. Eduniversal is a recognized ranking institution and is globally ranking degrees.

It is not my claim, it is sources (in the lead and in the article) that all call it explicitely top law school in France. That’s it.

--Launebee (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

No, that's only your opinion.

References describe Eduniversal's activities as "embarrassing", "against all the university' principles", "illegal" and "really outrageous"[15].

But anyway, you have implicitly admitted that it was not a fact, but only an opinion by a very specific company. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Why are you repeting things you know not te be true? These comments are not at all about Eduniversal rankings, which are recognized worldwide. And, about top law school (different topic than rankings), the sources say it explicitely, "top law school", so it’s obviously not my opinion. --Launebee (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Two references are used to support the claim "top law school" in the lead. Let's have a look at them :

• www.letudiant.fr : "cultive son image prestigieuse de “première université juridique de France” ". You should notice that the expression "première université juridique de France" (an expression that you poorly translated as "top law school") is between quotation mark. So clearly that's not the journalist' opinion, s/he is just reporting the university's claim.
• www.huffingtonpost.com : it simple, Assas is not even mentionned in this article. You made that up.

XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The journalist is saying the university has the reputation of top law school, so is the article. The HP says she attended to the top law school of France, and she attended to Assas. --Launebee (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

What part of "quotation mark" don't you understand ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Paid contributions

As this page is strangly very active (way more than any other French university), everyone should know that in the past (?) some people were paid on the French Wikipedia to contribute to this article. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

It’s no so important, but I don’t think it is accurate. You are misunderstanding the edit summary you are linking to. It’s in a poor French and it can mean the anything, like "it is better to have extensive information on universities". And you are linking to only one edit summary, so no "some people". --Launebee (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You are clearly trying to cover paid contributions. --XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

What?! I won’t even answer to this. --Launebee (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm asking @Launebee and Relsissi5588: to carefully read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. And then I want you to answer this very simple question : do you contributions fall under the scope of this rule ? You will notice that paid doesn't mean only geting money, and that any sort of affiliation must be disclosed (not only to the Panthéon-Assas University, but also to Eduniversal).

I'am also asking @Launebee and Relsissi5588: to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. And then I want you to answer this very simple question : do you contributions fall under the scope of this rule ? It includes links between Panthéon-Assas University, but also to Eduniversal and "family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships".

XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Panthéon-Assas University‎

Hello,

I know that it's probably not the best place to deal with that (the problem is larger than the Sciences Po article), but it would be good if someone could have a look at the article about Panthéon-Assas University‎. I have 30.000+ contributions on the French Wikipedia, but WP:RAA seems to work in a very specific way here.

In France Science-po and Assas are known to be rivals [16], and it feels like this fight is happening here now, as it was happening a few month ago on the French Wikipedia.

• On the French Wikipedia, a SPA was created on the 1st of Decembre 2015, and then started disruptive contributions about the Assas article (false claims about ranking, backed by a shady company... in order to promote that university)., and was blocked for a few weeks
• On the English Wikipedia, Launebee started to contribute on the very same day. I let you check by yourself what Launebee wrote on the Panthéon-"the top law school in France"-Assas article.

@SalimJah and MePhisto: you should definitely have a look at the Talk:Panthéon-Assas University. Launebee has had the same behaviour there. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

EDIT : and now Launebee is trying to cover paid contributions. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Please stop personal attacks. On top law school of France, I am not saying that, all the sources, in French and in English, do. --Launebee (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Law school don't exist in France, and they have never existed.

You have wasted months on the Sciences Po talk page, trying to attack contributors on their "Approximations". That's eaxactly what you are doing here.

And if you can't quote me making "personal attacks", that's a personnal attack. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Controversies ?

@Launebee: added nearly 15 references to the Sciences Po article about "scandals" related to that college (more than half of the references), so as to describe it as "strongly criticised in France and abroad and faced numerous scandals." in the lead. Neutrality explains that articles should be written "without editorial bias". So let's see what can be found about this university, and so, what should be written in the lead if it had to be written like Science Po's. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you to start this thread with a personal attack on me. If you have a change to propose about SP, please tell us there. You statement is irrelevant here. --Launebee (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you stop saying that I'm a criminal who is breaking the rules ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I was merely explaining to you that your point was not relevant here. --Launebee (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

A long and enduring tradition of racism and antisemitism

The university has a long tradition of racism and antisemitism. Since its creation, ratonnades have been a common sight ·  ·  ·  · . "Elitism" has a very specific meaning there.

I have noticed that @Launebee: has written the lead section of Sciences Po so as to mention any controversies[17]. So I assume that he or she will agree to mention in the lead the racist and antisemitic reputation of this university.

References

XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

EDIT : and of course, Le Monde, Libération, and Le Parisien are serious newspapers, nothing like Eduniversal. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Launebee: refuses to talk about this part, and even claims that it concerns only "the 1970's (...)a few years with only a few students".

So to put it clearly, there is an an article about the Groupe Union Défense, so it's a bit famous.

But let's check an other article, by Le Figaro this time, and published in 2012 [18] (an other well known newspaper) :

Template:Fr"les militants [de l'UDJF] se battaient fréquemment avec ceux du GUD dans les années 1980-1990" : UDJF activists and GUD members frequently clashed during the 1980's and the 1990's.

Template:Fr"Des bastons très violentes entre gudards et antifascistes dont certains ont eu des côtes cassées se sont déroulés près de l'université. Et deux cars de police ont été récemment postés devant la fac" : violent brawls between GUD members and antifascists near the university, some of them had ribs and noses broken. Two police vans had to be permanently dispatched in front of the campus. This part is about recent events, and the article goes on, gibing explanations about how these GUD members enroll in this "prestigious" university. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Panthéon-Assas is here the VICTIM of racism and antisemitsm

What you are quoting (some fights sometimes near the university) is not at all what you are saying, ie foreigners and Jews being commonly beaten up in PA (ratonnades) or PA as an institution having or having the reputation to have an enduring tradition of racism and antisemistism! If you don’t understand that you cannot state that someone or an entity is a place for crimes, you should get informed about defamation. Your articles are only saying that some students had activities outside the university, and they tried and failed to get elected inside, that’s it. It’s not at all attached to PA, and you are yourself quoting that guards had once been put in front of PA, to prevent this violence to touch PA. But such a thing (temporary guard to protect the university from an external thing) exists for every Parisian university, it is Paris in itself that have some violence, especially student ones, perhaps like every capital in the world.

--Launebee (talk) 09:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Why are you refering to jew students as "foreigners" ? World War II is over, and you can still be French and jew. You should start to really carefully care about the words you use.

Well, for the rest of your comment, that's only your opinion. And of course it should be kept out of the article (and come on, cops in Front of every universities in Paris because of brawls ?)

I gave you references from well know newspapers (Le Figaro, Le Monde, Libération, and Le Parisien), I gave you the quotes, and their translations. There is a part about it on the French article. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I did not write that at all, what you are writing is absolutely outrageous!

You cannot give references about one topic and invent anything you like about this topic. These newspapers are not saying that at all, simply because it is false, no court has ever said such despicable things exist in PA, and then it is libelous. Beating up people is a crime, letting that done inside an institution is a crime, having a tradition of racism and antisemitism is a crime, saying that someone has this reputation without any actual evidence is a crime. You cannot tell such things if it is not true. Any journalist who would have made such libelous statement would be prosecuted, and even if it was done, copying libelous statements from any source is in itself a crime.

You are now making libelous statements against PA and me. You seriously have to stop!

--Launebee (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

You have used to word "foreigners" to described thoses students, victims of racism and antisemitism. This kind of speech in France is deeply connected to far-right movements, and is considered as hate-speech. You say that you know a lot of things about France, so that's definitely something that you can't ignore. You are responsible for what you say.

I have given references from well know newspapers, I have quoted them, and I have translated these quotes. I have even shown that this topic is tackled on the French article. Your denial won't lead you anywhere. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I clearly did not describe Jews as foreigners. Your attack is absolutely despicable. --Launebee (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

As there is no valid opposition, this shall be added to the Lead, just like the scandals are mention in the Sciences Po lead. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Illegal activities in SP have been pointed out by official state agencies and by courts. What you want to put in here is only libel. --Launebee (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Still nothing relevant to say about these references ? Good. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Croix gammées à Assas: l'UEJF porte plainte". www.europe1.fr. Europe 1. 8 March 2013. Retrieved 8 December 2016. plusieurs croix gammées sur la porte de son local à l'Université Paris 2 Assas

• Catalon, Jean-Christophe (19 June 2015). "L'extrême droite est-elle de retour à Assas ?". www.lesinrocks.com. Les Inrockuptibles. Retrieved 8 december 2016. Soutien d'Assas Patriote au mouvement PEGIDA face aux néo-hippies complexés. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
• Faye, Olivier (8 june 2015). "Avec « Assas Patriote », l'extrême droite tente de reprendre pied à Paris-II Panthéon-Assas". droites-extremes.blog.lemonde.fr. Le Monde. Retrieved 8 december 2016. un établissement marqué par un passé de violences liées au militantisme d'extrême droite. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |access-date= and |date= (help)
• Lazard, Violette (8 november 2007). "Le local de l'extrême droite dérange Assas". www.leparisien.fr. Le Parisien. Retrieved 8 december 2016. une cinquantaine d'étudiants se sont rassemblés devant le Panthéon pour dénoncer cette « vitrine donnée aux idées racistes, xénophobes, antisémites et homophobes » {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |access-date= and |date= (help)
• "L'extreme-droite menace l'UEC à Assas". www.humanite.fr. L'Humanité. 18 October 2016. Retrieved 8 december 2016. le groupuscule d'extrême droite Action Française a tenté de perturber la réunion de rentrée des étudiant.e.s communistes d'Assas. Une dizaine d'individus cagoulés, inconnus des étudiant.e.s, se sont positionnés devant l'entrée en tentant de la bloquer. Distribuant des tracts diffamatoires et insultants, ils ont ensuite allumé des fumigènes aux cris de "communistes à mort" {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
• Gibour, Raphaël (11 March 2013). "Des croix gammées dessinées dans l'université d'Assas". etudiant.lefigaro.fr. Le Figaro. Retrieved 8 december 2016. quelqu'un en a profité pour dessiner des croix gammées sur la porte du local de l'Union des étudiants juifs de France (UEJF ), qui a depuis comme l'université porté plainte contre X {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
• Nicolas Rinaldi, Abdallah Soidri (24 february 2016). "Attaqué à Assas par un syndicat étudiant identitaire, Alain Juppé leur oppose son "identité heureuse"". www.marianne.net. Marianne. Retrieved 8 december 2016. "Bienvenue Ali Juppé, grand mufti de Bordeaux". C'est sous cette bannière qu'une dizaine de membres de l'association "Assas Patriote", syndicat étudiant d'extrême droite {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |access-date= and |date= (help)

Again, just a selection. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

As stated under, PA is a victim of this swastikas, because of its strong Jewish community, it asked for prosecution. If a synaguogue receives swastikas, we wouldn’t summarize "antisemitism in this synaguogue"! --Launebee (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Sexism

Just a short selection of articles related to sexism issues at this university.

• Schmitt, Amandine (16 February 2016). "Un site classe les filles selon le physique : malaise à l'université Assas". tempsreel.nouvelobs.com. L'Obs. Retrieved 8 December 2016. il y a un vrai problème de sexisme dans notre université, qui n'est pas réellement combattu (...) Au niveau de l'organisme national de la mission égalité, seuls Paris II et Paris IX ne sont pas représentés
• "Scandale sexiste à Assas". www.lepoint.fr. Le Point. 16 February 2016. Retrieved 8 December 2016. Les photos des jeunes femmes concernées étaient postées sans leur consentement et des commentaires pouvaient être laissés librement sur le site.
• "Paris: Bestassas.com, le site polémique qui se proposait de classer les étudiantes d'Assas selon leur physique". www.20minutes.fr. 20 minutes. 16 February 2016. Retrieved 8 December 2016. SEXISME Les photos étaient postées sans l'autorisation des étudiantes. En cliquant dessus, les internautes pouvaient même laisser un commentaire
• "Un site polémique classait les étudiantes d'Assas selon leur physique". www.europe1.fr. Europe 1. 17 February 2016. Retrieved 8 December 2016. Une plateforme dégoulinante de sexisme. Comme dans un catalogue de vente en ligne, chaque fille était caractérisée par une photo, classée, notée et même commentée. (...)"les filles qui sont présentes sur ce site n'ont pas demandé à l'être. Ainsi, la présence de leur photo et de leur nom constitue une utilisation de leur personne et une violation du droit à l'image"
• "Polémique: un site établissait un classement des plus belles étudiantes d'Assas". www.charentelibre.fr. Charente libre. 18 February 2016. Retrieved 8 December 2016. importance des problèmes de sexisme en milieu universitaire, notamment à l'Université Paris 2 Panthéon-Assas

of course more can be added, and feel free to do so. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Not at all the deed of Panthéon-Assas

Private website, nothing to do with the university in itself (see under). --Launebee (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Unfair competition

• Rey-Lefebvre, Isabelle (13 August 2012). "Paris-II-Assas, première faculté à offrir une prépa privée à l'examen d'avocat". www.lemonde.fr. Le Monde. Retrieved 8 December 2016. Une nouvelle concurrence jugée déloyale par les autres prépas privées.
• Rey-Lefebvre, Isabelle (9 November 2013). "L'université Panthéon-Assas condamnée pour avoir créé sa propre prépa privée". www.lemonde.fr. Le Monde. Retrieved 8 December 2016. Un comble pour la faculté de droit censée former les meilleurs juristes de France : l'université Paris-II Panthéon Assas s'est fait sèchement rappeler à l'ordre par le tribunal administratif de Paris.

Again, just a selection. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Global answer

Except those on the private school, none of these articles are related to the deeds of PA as an institution. In every academic institution, some students are doing things. For instance, in Harvard, blacks deans portraits have been crossed, but it is not Harvard as an institution at all. However, in Stanford, there has been concerns about the board attitude toward sexual assault: there, it is the institution (but even here, you could not repeat this as a fact until it proven in court). For SP, all of the scandals deal with SP as an institution, with judicicial sentences and state agency's report. For PA, I don't see how the managerial instances are anyhow involved in, for example in your claim of sexism, the fact one of its first year student created and then deleted a private-owned website (all your links deal with this event). Nobody is even accusing PA of any wrongdoing in your links. About racism, these articles do not support your original claims. About the private school, it is this time not libelous, but it is a very specific topic (is a law school allowed to create its own preparatory school) and not a controversy. --Launebee (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The title is clearly a legal threat, and you have been warned against that. @Hasteur: told you less than a week ago that "Danger, we've entered NLT territory". You refused to remove your comment, and you said what you simply started a "discussion as to whether material is libelous (is not a legal threat)".

Today you don't even try to start a discussion about that, that is say using Arguments to proove your statement.

That's clearly an intimidation attempt. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

No it's not, and I don't think Hasteur entered the AN/I thread with a sufficient level of understanding of the discussion. Discussing or declaring something to be libelous is not in itself a legal threat. Not a legal threat; "This is libelous". A legal threat; "This is libelous and I'm going to sue" or "This is libelous and I'll be contacting my attorneys about this" or anything to that effect. Anything that has the express intention of legal intimidation, which I'm not reading anywhere in the above, is a legal threat. That said, Launebee I'm going to ask you to refrain from declaring anything as being libelous or defamatory as it is not unreasonable for an editor to perceive it as such. Per NLT; if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous," that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue, even if that is not your intention. It's a "trigger" word that leaves people uneasy. Understandably so since usually these terms are generally used in the context of lawsuits. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude:I understand what you mean. In the same time, isn’t it important for him to know that what he is writing is seriously wrong, to the extent that he has to stop and the admins have to delete history? Yes, it is legally wrong, but it is also morally wrong to freely drag one’s reputation in the mire.

What he is trying to do is to say, there are newspapers talking in the same time of PA and Jews, so let’s say that this university has a tradition of having its Jews beaten up! And, by the way, this user is not happy with that, so let’s say he’s saying Jews are foreigners! He just 'can’t', because it is morally wrong. Don’t you think?

--Launebee (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Launebee Doubling down on statements that editors have suggested could get you into trouble only demonstrates that you don't understand the point of NLT. Do not, under any circumstances, use language that suggests or implies that you are going to use legal action to get your point of view. Your repeated pirouetting about the definitions of the terms does not remove the chilling effect that your words and phrases have imparted to this page and to the ANI discussion. Next time you claim that you claim "libel" I will suggest that your repeated doubling down on your statements regarding the content have risen sufficiently to the point that administrative revocation of your ability to edit this encyclopedia should be enacted. I say again (along with Mr rnddude) knock off any claims of libel. There are other ways to express opposition to sources or claims such as I do not think X is right because Y,R,M, and Z which invites a consensus discussion instead of wielding implied legal threats. Hasteur (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

While I understand MrNudule point, I don’t understand yours. Once again, "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat." --Launebee (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

removals of complains

I have checked the history of the article, and I have seen that @Launebee: and @Relsissi5588: have removed warning templates :

• [19]March, 4
• March, 13
• April, 5
• November, 29
• November, 30
• November, 30
• November, 30
• November, 30

Now let's see what Lannebee is doing on an other article, Sciences Po, which is known to be a long standing rival of this university. Well, he/she is not endlessly removing put putting the warning templates on the lead :

• September, 17
• August, 8
• July, 17

Should I be surprised ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It comes to no surprise that one of these contributor tries to censor my text today and yesterday. After trying and failing with legal threat, this contributor is trying new tricks. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 06:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Review of the Article

As an editor who has done B-class, GA-class and A-class reviews and who has contributed B-class and GA-class articles, I think I'm relatively qualified to give an assessment of the article as it is in its current state. So I've taken the time to re-assess it against the B-class criteria. It is currently rated B-class, and I'm not going to change that designation, but, I hope the below will act to demonstrate what I think this article is lacking in. It lacks three things in my opinion; 1. citations (refer to B1), 2. well written and non-contentious claims (refer B2 and B4), and 3. standardized format - the citations that are here are a mess.

• B1 - Referencing and Citations;

• Lede - citations should not be pervasive in the lede, the lede summarizes the body of the article. That said, there are a heap of things said in the lede that are either not mentioned in the body, or, not cited in the body either.
• Administration - entirely uncited.
• Campuses;

• The university has eighteen campuses in Paris and one in Melun. - Citation needed
• The campus in Melun hosts local first-year students. It is located in the old town of Melun, on Saint-Étienne Island, among Roman and Gothic remains. The Institute of Law and Economics of Pantheon-Assas University is located there. - Citation needed

• Admissions

• All French universities are legally obliged to allow students to change universities and curriculums after the first semester of their first year. However, they are allowed to accept as few or many students as they like; Panthéon-Assas accepts only 3% of transfer requests. Admission to the second year of the university's master programs is selective as well, some of these programs admitting only 1.7% of applicants. - Citation needed

• Libraries

• and which is co-administered by Panthéon-Assas and Panthéon-Sorbonne. - Citation needed

• Research - entirely uncited
• Programs for excellence - entirely uncited
• Alumni - entirely uncited
• Presidents - entirely uncited
• Citations themselves are a mess, most citations are just a link to an article and do not give the reader any information about the publisher, date, or author. The citations need a thorough cleaning.

• Result: Fails B1 due to the significant portions of the article lacking any citation whatsoever. I didn't even count the multiple instances of questionable citations.

• B2 - Coverage and accuracy;

• Panthéon-Assas University has always been ranked first in law in national rankings - WP:PEACOCK; This is clearly impossible to prove. It may be ranked first by Eduniversal and others, but, that ranking only applies to them. As stated above this would need to be recast and attribution provided. It is not a neutral statement. Take Harvard, known to be one of the best institutions in the world, nowhere on it's article does it describe itself as such without giving proper attribution to whom is declaring it. Despite this, it's also ranked anywhere between 1st and 6th in other sources and this is acknowledged within the article as well. Assas is much the same - Eduniversal puts it first, QS puts it third, LLM puts it second.
• is commonly associated with "excellence" in Law - This is far too vague to be of any use. One source =/= common.
• and is seen in France and abroad as "the top law school in France". - by whom? and more importantly not "the", never "the". One of the... sure, but, "the" no. Not a neutral statement.
• Panthéon-Assas University has always been ranked first in law in national rankings - only Eduniversal rankings and this alone is not sufficient to make such a declarative statement. Not a neutral statement.
• Assas graduates have by far the highest salary of all French law schools. - According to "capital.fr" Assas graduates have by far the highest salary of all French law schools. A single source should never be used to make a contentious declarative statement.
• Assas is commonly seen as a university of "excellence" in Law and is often called in France and abroad "the top law school in France". - I noted all the citations, but, I feel relative safe in saying that each of those sources state this only for themselves. I.e. They state that it is "the top law school in France", but, do not state "is often called ... the top law school in France". As such, this statement only reflects a select group of sources and not necessarily the common statement across all sources.

Thanks for your point of view. In fact, the source clearly states that it is generally considered as the top law school of France without giving its own opinion: "son image prestigieuse de “première université juridique de France”" [20]. I don’t think "prestigious should be in the article, because all schools can be prestigious, but the reputation of first law school is clearly stated. --Launebee (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Result = Fails B2 due to the fairly pervasive use of exaggerated or contentious labels that may well reflect the sources used within the article, but, cannot and do not reflect the views of all or most sources.

No, only the sources that you have selected say that. I have already provided ranking that says that this university compares poorly against other French universities. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

1)No, you did not. 2) It is off-topic. We are talking about reputation here, and since the source was in French, I just explained. --Launebee (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I did it on the French version of Wikipédia to your other puppet, and again on the English version. You are lying to an other contributor just to try to gain some time. It's relevant because it shows that you know that you are lying when you write this article. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• B3 - Structure
• Result = Passes easily enough.

• B4 - Grammar

• Lede

• Heir of the... - you mean successor. Buildings aren't heirs, they are successors.

• Body
• Panthéon-Assas was established so as to take over from the... - Not a well written sentence with run-ons to boot. Perhaps; Panthéon-Assas was established in 1970 to take over the faculty of law and economics from its predecessor, the University of Paris (Sorbonne Univesity) which itself was founded in the middle of the twelfth century and ceased to exist on December 31st, 1970 as a result of the student protests of 1969.
• Clinging to the cultural legacy of the University of Paris, and considering that their faculty already gathered professors from other disciplines (political economics and political science) than their own, most of the law professors of the faculty of law and economics wished only to restructure their faculty into a university, so they founded the "University of law, economics and social sciences of Paris" or "Paris II". - Another poorly written sentence which I actually can't even follow.
• and in 1998 to "Panthéon-Assas" only, in reference to the - run on. And in 1998 to "Panthéon-Assas" only. This is a reference to the...
• The president of Panthéon-Assas is elected by members of the administration council, for a four-year tenure - remove the comma.
• in 1969 serving as - in 1969, and serves as...
• two dozens of research centres - two dozen research centres...
• are located in the structure - a structure, not the.
• It is registered among - it is registered as a...
• second-year to four-year law students - fourth year.
• with 1,700 seats; - a period (.) would be more appropriate.
• Assas building has been redesigned last ten years and now hosts a learning center. - has it been redesigned in the past ten years, or over the period of the last ten years.

• There's many more like this. I'm just not doing a complete review as parts of this article remain uncited and thus subject to change or removal.
• Result = Not a B-class standard, so fails B4 as well.

• B5 - Supporting Materials
• Result = Passes with ease, though I'm not sure about non-free content usage.

Overall; The article needs serious work to clean up the writing, fix up the citations, and remove insufficiently sourced non-neutral statements. This is definitely not an article I would pass at the B-class level. This is my opinion only, nor am I expecting anybody to undertake this as their project. I just want to explain/demonstrate where and how this article is lacking. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

As of today, nothing has been done to fix the issues. The conclusion is still fully relevant.XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The review was followed by a change and is not relevant anymore. --Launebee (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)--Launebee (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Never confuse movement with action.

Some dust was removed, but as of today, nothing has been done to fix the issues. The conclusion is still fully relevant. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

{{ping|Mr rnddude]], could you tell us if you think there still is a neutrality issue on this article. For understanding of sources, this one states that PA has an "image prestigieuse de “première université juridique de France”" ("prestigious reputation of top law school of France"). Thanks! --Launebee (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You made an error with the ping template, but, I have this article on my watchlist so found it anyway. L'Etudiant doesn't state that PA has a "prestigious reputation of top law school of France" it says that PA "cultivates its prestigious image as the "top law school in France"". In fact, L'Etudiant was quoting the front page of PA's website which says; Premiere universite juridique de France. There is a big difference between having that image and cultivating it. What L'Etudiant does say, however, is that PA is "renowned for excellence in Law"; Réputée pour son excellence en droit. On the question of neutrality, yes it still has problems. Example; ... and is generally considered to be "the top law school in France". Like I said, this isn't what L'Etudiant says. A more accurate portrayal of the source would be ... and cultivates it's own image of being "the top law school in France". I think I said somewhere in my review that one source =/= a common view. I skimmed over my review and looked at the article in comparison. Most of my review still stands. The sources sections is much cleaner, but, the citations are still something of a mess. Large paragraphs still have no citation; e.g. Administration and Presidents. There are numerous grammatical problems that still exist. There have been some improvements though. What I did miss was the 16 revert (8 each) edit-war between you and XIIIfromTOKYO on April 30th, 2017 over this edit. From what I can tell, the edit war was over the phrase ... and is generally considered as "the top law school in France" and the removal of the maintenance tags for "advert", "refimprove" and "close paraphrasing". The rest of the edit seemed fine to me? Numerous sources added and some non-controversial material about PA's history. Is there anything else in the edit that you find controversial XIIIfromTOKYO. If there's a large edit and you contest a small portion of it only, then it's best to remove only the part that you find problematic and leave the rest in as a constructive contribution to the article. I'll probably come back to this sometime later, I have other things to attend to in the meantime. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: I have already tried to remove only the part that you find problematic, but it is impossible with this contributor.

I have also tried to bring more contributors, but even admins have fleed. What should I do next ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 06:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: Thanks. Is it better now? --Launebee (talk) 09:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude:, Launebee has once again tried to remove the warning template. S/he says that it was beacause s/he was Following Mr rnddude remarks. Do you agree on that kind of beheaviour ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm considering trying to help this article out. It's not a topic of interest and I don't know anything about French educational institutions, but, I figure if we can bring to this article to an amiable quality (genuine B-class) that might end this dispute. I'm going to do a copy-edit of the whole article. I'll leave comments possibly both today and tomorrow. I was hoping to start work on either Lycurgus of Sparta or Djoser today, but, I'll postpone that for a few days if I have to. On the topic of Launebee's question; Yes, the change makes the article more neutral now. Whether the article is now NPOV I don't know as I haven't gone through the whole article. I also don't know that it was wise to remove the templates. Specifically, even if that addresses NPOV it doesn't touch on advert or refimprove. On the topic of XIIIfromTOKYO's question; I am aware that Launebee removed the maintenance templates from the article in their most recent edit. You've re-instated the templates. Can we leave the templates alone (in the article) for about a week or until all three of us are completely satisfied that they are no longer necessary. I also considered posting at Dispute resolution noticeboard as I don't actively participate in this area. If by the end of the week (Sunday, 14th May 2017 at 12:00 UTC - 2pm in France I think and 10pm AEST for me) we've made no or limited progress and are still having the same problems I'm going to leave a post at DRN. I'm also going to outline a proposal for dealing with controversial changes. 1. Be bold and make your contribution. 2. If it's undone (that is found controversial), bring the proposed change to the article talk and we'll discuss. 3. Do not reinstate the change until we have a consensus on what to do with it. If the consensus is to re-instate do so, if not, leave it out. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, your help would be greatly appreciated indeed! Launebee (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: As you can see, "Thanks a lot" mean "I don't care, I will remove the templates no matter what you say". I have had to face that beahaviour for months. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It is very annoying that everything I do is turned into personal attacks by XIII. @Mr rnddude: Do you think that even after your edits, one template is not sufficient? --Launebee (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

XIIIfromTOKYO, Please stop removing sourced content. If you have arguments to disagree on sourced content that has been here for months, please talk first (without personal attacks like "you are lying") and then we get a consensus on your proposed changes. --Launebee (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I am only following the rules. No Wikipedia:Consensus has been reach, so the materials have to be removed from the article. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

No Wikipedia:Consensus has been reach on your changes, so please follow the rules. Launebee (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Give the links proving what you say. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

A link proving that you are deleting sources without consensus? Launebee (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

"""The article needs serious work to clean up the writing, fix up the citations, and remove insufficiently sourced non-neutral statements."""[21].

You have had 5 months to fix it. You didn't . So I remove anything that fall under the ""insufficiently sourced non-neutral statements"". XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

You are precisely deleting the sources. --Launebee (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm deleting ""insufficiently sourced non-neutral statements"".

Sources and neutrality are 2 differents things. I have also given dozens of sources showing that antisemitism, racism, and many other criminal activities in Assas have been a commun sight for decades. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen you saying that because it was sourced, it had to be on the article. I haven't used legal threat to put it on the article either. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

1) It is false. 2) You cannot answer so you are personally attacking me. 3) You quote is about an old version, not about this one. --Launebee (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you be more specific ? It should be a good start to give the quotes and diffs of anything that you think is "false", or an "personnal attack". It's getting very difficult to understand what you mean.

Again, I have also given dozens of references showing that antisemitism, racism, and many other criminal activities in Assas have been a commun sight for decades. There are references (lots of them), so do you agree to put them in the article ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

PA has been sometimes the VICTIM of antisemitism because of its strong Jewish community. Once again, if a synaguogue receives swastikas, we wouldn’t summarize "antisemitism in this synaguogue"! PA has "porté plainte" (declared itself as victim to the public prosecutor for charges to be brought) because of this swastica put by one student (not at all common sight). Launebee (talk) 09:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

So now there is a strong Jewish community in this college. Do you have a reference to back that claim, or is that from your personnal experience or préjugés ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It is off-topic anyway, but you can see the Facebook page of Union des Étudiants Juifs de France Assas has a lot more likes and followers than UNEF Assas (twice less)(UNEF being historically the first student union of France) or UNI Assas (10 times less) (UNI being the first right-wing student union). --Launebee (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

So you don't have any solid reference to back your claim.

I have provided solid references that say that antisemitism, among other misbeheviour, has been a common sight on the campus for decades. I don't see any reason why it should be kept away from the article. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not, you only provided reference of the fact that Panthéon-Assas has been the victim of a swastika marking, and it is certainly not the only university with shamefull tags on its walls. --Launebee (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

victim is your opinion only. Nothing like that that is said in the references. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The references say that PA has "porté plainte", so, legally, PA is called a "victim". --Launebee (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

On touche le fond.

Bon, je vais t'aider pour tes prochains partiels. Un dépôt de plainte n'est que le début de la procédure. Non seulement il ne présage pas du résultat final, mais en plus il peut tout à fait aboutir à un classement sans suite.

Tu n'as sans doute pas été assez attentif lors de ta capacité en droit, mais une fr:plainte et une fr:Plainte avec constitution de partie civile en France sont deux choses différentes.

Tu es bien conscient que tout es public, et que n'importe qui peut poster ça sur Twitter, avec ton exploit sur Eduniversal et Science-Po (avec tout le basard médiatique à prévoir vu certaines expressions utilisées en PDD ) ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: It is the second time this user is threatening me by saying the press might be contacted etc. Not that I am afraid of this, but isn’t it contrary to Wikipedia policies? --Launebee (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Needless to say that not a word of what Launebee says is true.

A new attempt to bring the discussion away from the main points. No serious reference has been provided. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I made an ANI request. --Launebee (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorbonne Law School

@Mr rnddude: XIIIfromTOKYO is repetitively deleting all reference to the name "Sorbonne Law School", saying it is an advertisement, even though you have sources with the Financial Times, the Chicago Tribune, Vocativ, US News either calling it "Sorbonne Law School", or explicitely saying PA is "the Law School in the Sorbonne". What to do? --Launebee (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I have already clearly explained the point when I removed tyour mistake.

The École de droit de la Sorbonne is not the name of the university. It is the name of one of the departement of the university.

You have only provided very poor references so far. None of them come from a media with at least a minimum knowledge of the subject.

Still, you have provided a source showing that the university has been the craddle of "Holocaust-denying, Vichy-celebrating" groups for decades. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Not at all the "cradle" of it. It is an article about Le Pen, saying by the way that she went to the Sorbonne Law School. Like Christiane Taubira and a lot of left-wing politician. About "media with at least a minimum knowledge of the subject", so Wikipedia should contain your point of view over the Financial Times, The Chicago Tribune, and three other major news agencies? --Launebee (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The only references that you can find come from journalists who have never been to France, and have no particular knowledge on the topic. Obviously not reliable sources. Clear and simple. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

They "have never been in France" is really your argument for saying that The Financial Times is not serious about French universities? --Launebee (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Sources in Google cache: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cct_UIjeLuMJ:https://www.ft.com/content/9e81dc58-9e57-11e0-8e61-00144feabdc0+&cd=1&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:EbV6EJUm2QEJ:https://www.ft.com/content/510c561c-f405-11df-886b-00144feab49a+&cd=1&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl --Launebee (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Findings and attempted research

I've spent the past couple of days searching online for good sources for this article. PA is most notable in France, not particularly notable in an English speaking countries. This means in my searching that I've found fewer English sources than French. In this case specifically, aside from press releases (which I personally don't use for non-news articles at all) I haven't found anything useful to help me fix up the article. I've looked at the sources currently in the article, I'm of the opinion that the French sources are of a much better quality than the English ones. I've never heard of U.S. News before. The sources that I can look at are used improperly. For examples;

• 1. Assas’ international Law School, Sorbonne-Assas International Law School, is the 25th most popular in the world (1st of France) on LLM Guide cited to LLM. That's only half accurate Sorbonne-Assas is the 18th most popular in the world and first in France. That's not really the issue though. Sorbonne-Assas is not Pantheon-Assas (according to LLM), which is ranked 78th in the world and 5th in France on the same article. Indeed, I think Sorbonne-Assas is a reference to Paris I and not Paris II. Furthermore this popularity ranking is based on A ranking of the most popular Worldwide LLM listings in our directory based on unique profile views. This is a dubious at best way to measure popularity.
• 2. On top of its official name, the university is referred to as "Assas" or "Paris II" cited to this article by "voanews". Mentions of Assas in the article = 0. Mentions of Paris II in the article = 1. Mentions of Pantheon-Assas in the article = 0. Yet somehow this source demonstrates that Pantheon-Assas is also referred to as Assas and Paris II. I understand what the point of this was, it was to link to a source that does call it by an alternative name. I don't know how the French encyclopaedia works, but, the English on has a very strict no original research policy.

I haven't been able to look at some sources like the Financial Times which requires a paid subscription. I don't speak French and can't translate google books pages without significant effort to rewrite entire pages first. Luckily, sources that are on news webpages I can get Mozilla Firefox to automatically translate the entire page for me. So I don't have to do so manually. In short, it would take a lot of effort for me to go through this entire article and actually fix it. Far more than I am willing to expend on this topic. What I can do is the basic copy-editing for grammar, spelling and punctuation that I have already done to parts of the article. I will endeavour to complete this copy-edit for the whole article. I've done about half of the article at this moment. This effort is being hampered by the edit-warring over content that continues at a slow pace. So instead I'm going to drive my focus to one specific thing; this material which has been the focus of the edit war for the last while. I can't remember if this dates back to the 2016 edit-wars, but, it's what is at stake right now. I'm going to go piece by piece into the material being added and removed in this edit and make a recommendation for each individual sentence.

• or "Sorbonne Law School"). Like I've said, I can't read the Financial Times article as it is hidden behind a paywall. So I have to neglect to pass any comment on this sentence specifically. (I have more to say about this on the second to last point)
• Heir of the faculty of law and economics of the University of Paris (La Sorbonne),. I can support inclusion of this. I can confirm the veracity of the statement that Pantheon-Assas is l'Université Panthéon-Assas est l'héritière de l'ancienne Faculté de droit et de sciences économiques de Paris, composante de la Sorbonne, installée au cœur du quartier latin depuis le XIIIème siècle or in English the Panthéon-Assas University is the heir of the former Faculty of Law and Economics of Paris, part of the Sorbonne, located in the heart of the Latin Quarter since the 13th century. I can also state that University of Paris and Sorbonne are being used interchangeably within the source. I suspect the reason for this is that Sorbonne is the law school at University of Paris. XIIIfromTOKYO, I think you're getting a bit confused on this point. PA is the only heir of the faculty of law. Paris II inherited Law, Paris IV inherited humanities, Paris V inherited medicine etc, etc. Pantheon-Sorbonne (Paris I) is multidisciplinary and while an inheritor of University of Paris, was not built by a single discipline.
• Panthéon-Assas University is ranked first in law by Eduniversal Support inclusion, but, not in the lede of the article. If you're going to do rankings, they need to be updated every year. Eduniversal has ranked Pantheon-Assas first in Law in France for the period 2016-17. By the way, change that sentence to is is ranked first in law in France by Eduniversal. Leaving it as first in law implies in the world. The rankings should only be mentioned in the section entitled rankings. This sentence should replace this one; Panthéon-Assas University has always been ranked first in law in Eduniversal rankings. I checked each year and in 2011-2012 PA was ranked third behind Pantheon-Sorbonne and Paris Dauphine. So no, not always.
• and is renowned for excellence in Law." Accurate to the cited source. Can be included in the lede, but, this should be done with care and thought as to where in the lede this belongs. Third paragraph is a good place to do it with the discussion about who the alumni of the university are.
• and "Sorbonne Law School". Citations 1 and 5 are both to FT. Citation 6 states law school at the Sorbonne. Citation 7 states Among them is Frederic Chatillon — a Hitler admirer and old friend of Le Pen’s from her Sorbonne law school days — who was banned per judicial order from having commercial ties with the National Front. In this case, citation 7 is inconsequential and should be removed. It's overlinking and doesn't actually go anywhere to suggest that Sorbonne Law School is PA. You'd have to know that Marine Le Pen was a student at PA to make the connection that Sorbonne Law School is in fact PA. I do have one problem with this whole Sorbonne Law School thing. While Sorbonne Law School does refer to PA it also refers to Pantheon-Sorbonne University (Paris I) and also Paris Law Faculty which is the predecessor of PA.
• ... but Jean Chambaz, president of Paris-Sorbonne University, "bet" that Panthéon-Assas will follow the merge by 2021. Does not appear to be in the cited source. Jean Chambaz stated that PA chose to step aside from the merger for fear of losing their identity. I didn't notice anything about a merge in the future. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: Sincerely thanks a lot for your work. Just few comments.

1. Sorbonne-Assas is linked to PA, and has no link with Panthéon-Sorbonne, you can see their logo [22] I agree LLM guide is not general, but only linked to itself.

2. You have here the FT articles: [23][24] Indeed, Panthéon-Sorbonne created in 2009 a law school with this name, but the Sorbonne Law School is primirily PA university, and it is called as such in different sources anyway.

3. PA has always been first in law in France in Eduniversal rankings. If you look at your ehample (2011-12), the two first in the ranking are "Law and Management" ("Droit et gestion") bachelor degrees, Panthéon-Sorbonne is fifth of the ranking in pure Law. Since 2013-14, they separate Law and Law and Management (like Law and English was already separated), which makes things clearer.

4. Chambaz says about their current refusal to be part of the merge: "Je fais le pari que dans quatre ans, leurs réticences seront levées." [25]

Hope these comments help.

--Launebee (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

1. Good, we agree that "Sorbonne-Assas" (or "Sorbonne-Assas international law school") is not the university itself, but just a school. So clearly saying that PA is "Sorbonne law school" is an obvious mistake and must be removed.

2. See 1/ the school and the university are 2 different bodies. Poor references must be removed.

3. Eduniversival... lol. "false advertising" was the expression used by fr:Jean-Loup Salzmann, the head director of the French University network, and embarrassing was the word used by many other University presidents. Even the ministry of higher education was mulling a legal approach about that company[26].

4. So, nothing serious. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

1.2. Not at all what I have said. Sorbonne-Assas international law school is a different entity created by PA, which is the Sorbonne Law School (not the international one). The FT is very clear about.

3. It is false and you know it, they are talking about another activity of the company which own Eduniversal, and it is only opinions with obviously no legal claim. I already explained it to you above "rankings", and in Eduniversal talk page. All major French newspaper and some international ones have confidence in this company and this ranking, as already said.

--Launebee (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Given the number of different threads and comments to deal with I'll try to be quick here. Launebee, on your first point, Sorbonne Law School is a disambig page which links to PA and Pantheon-Sorbonne. Indeed the Pantheon-Sorbonne University article has several references to Sorbonne Law School being part of their faculty. I don't know why that is because no citation is provided, I just noticed that its written into the article. On your second point, thanks for the links. On your third point, fair enough I had wondered why Pantheon-Sorbonne was listed twice. Though in this case, that would mean PS is first in Law and Management and third in Law with PA being first in just law. On your fourth, thanks for the quote and while it's nothing special, it's fair enough if you want to include it as sourced material. I don't mind either way. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

On point 1, "Sorbonne Law School" is originally the Paris Law Faculty, then it became Panthéon-Assas, and the PS created a different law school which it called that way in 2009, but we are talking about different entities. I see that they even created a "Sorbonne Law School" in English recently, which is the name of a master degree. But hese are other entities that they called this way.

On point 3, you are totally right. PA has no Law and Management bachelor degree, it is why it is not in this ranking. You can see that Law, and Law and English rankings are listed apart in the rankings section.

On point 4, thanks.

--Launebee (talk) 10:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

As anyone can see @Launebee: hasn't reached an agreement on any text, nor has s/he even proposed one. Pretending to be "Following Mr rnddude remarks", S:he just reverted back. There is no concensus on any text, as nothing as ever been proposed on the talk page. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

You haven’t reached any agreement to remove sourced content which has been here for a long time, and Mr rnddude supports, at least partially, the inclusion (Mr rnddude, tell me if I am wrong). --Launebee (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• I did say I support part of the edit in dispute. 1. I agreed with removing the LLM paragraph as potentially dubious. 2. I had no issue with including the Jean Chambaz quote with regards a merge in four years. 3. As far as I can tell, PA is the heir to the faculty of Law of the University of Paris. Indeed, that's what the cited source says. That said, I would still like to work out what to do with "Sorbonne Law School" – I mentioned above the ambiguity, and haven't worked out how to deal with it – and I don't think university rankings belong in the lede of the article. I have not seen this approach taken with more quality articles like Harvard University. It does appear in the lede in some University articles such as University of New South Wales. That's it I think. I got the message about leaving a comment at AN/I. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Rankings, or journalists' opinions ?

So most of the rankings used are from Eduniversal. "false advertising" was the expression used by fr:Jean-Loup Salzmann, the head director of the French University president network, and embarrassing was the word used by many other University presidents to define that company in France. Even the ministry of higher education was mulling a legal approach about that company[27]. Does is qualify as a reliable source ?

When we check the rankings, one can see that most of the references... are not rankings at all. Only words used by some journalists, and most of the time the university is not even the topic of these press articles. Does is qualify as a reliable source ?

Strangely, the French version of the article provides a list of rankings. Real ones. By serious newspaper (Le Point, Le Figaro, L'Étudiant). The best univerity in France ? Well 15th, 19th, 49th, 52th.

Real rankings are pretty bad.

So yes, the {{POV}}, {{advert}}, and {{refimprove}} templates are a necessity, and others could be added. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

You are confusing ranking and reputation.

On rankings, it seems the French version has been written by you, and I explained you above "ranking" section, that these are not accurate.

--Launebee (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• I've taken a look at a number of organizations that do University rankings specifically. The results were mixed.

• QS World University Rankings for Law puts Pantheon-Assas as 101st-150th in the world and 3rd in France.[28] <- this is by far the most relevant finding and also one that I made last year that has not been used in the article.
• Webometrics puts Pantheon-Assas at 146th in France across all subjects and 176th in Excellence. It doesn't do subject specific rankings unfortunately.[29]
• For ARWU, CWUR, and THE (Times Higher Education) it does not appear in the rankings at all. ARWU doesn't do law rankings, and CWUR only does the top ten in the world for law which are all U.S. Universities.
• THE lists; Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris-Sud University, Paris-Descartes, University of Bordeaux, Montpellier, U of Nantes, U of Nice Sophia Antipolis, Paris I, Ecole Centrale de Lyon, and U of Cergy-Pontaise.[30]
• GWC doesn't list Paris II either, but, it doesn't do subject or national rankings.[31]
• RUR doesn't list Paris II.[32].

• So on and so on. Eduniversal rankings do not appear to be disreputable. Not from what I've found at least. That said, selectively listing only a single source which puts PA in the best possible light is by definition not neutral and therefore inappropriate. I'd like at least QS (3rd) and Eduniversal (1st) to be cited for national rankings in Law. I'd also like some comparison to world rankings; that is 101-150th according to QS for Law. I haven't found any other world wide rankings for PA in Law unfortunately.

• On the topic of Eduniversal, they list PA as 27th in France.[33][34]
• It appear Meilleurs-Licenses is a subsidiary of Eduniversal. They are the one's who list PA as the best in France in Law.[35]
• Btw Masterbooking.fr is a subsidiary of Eduniversal. From what I gather, the problem with masterbooking.fr is that they are charging students (or potential students) for their applications or their services in a way that the Universities in question are completely unaware about? I read the whole article in translation, but, it wasn't very insightful to me.

• Lastly and this annoys me most of all, L'etudiant does not list Paris II as 52nd, they list it as 54th. Clermont Ferrand 2 is 52nd.[36] This isn't XIIIfromTOKYO's fault, that's actually what is written on the French article. I have gone ahead, made my first ever edit to the .fr Wikipedia and fixed it.[37]. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude:

• As you can find in the PA article, QS rankings are based on English speaking publications.
• The Eduniversal ranking you are refering to are in business, not in Law. "Licence" means "bachelor". The meilleures licences websites ranks bachelor degree, meilleurs masters masters’s degree, and the global site Eduniversal business schools (not law school)
• The French websites rankings are very specific rankings, not overall rankings of universities. One is on job finding, but numbers are approximative, and PA has 97% of findings, so not noticable at all. The other one is diffulty to exams (proportions of pass in three years), so it is the same. These are not global rankings at all.
• QS rankings and other rankings companies have also paid activities, some raised questions in France. But it has no relationship with the rankings.

--Launebee (talk) 09:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Ah, I had missed that the QS rankings had been included already. Sorry, I had been looking at the lede with the Eduniversal ranking only. Rankings don't have to be global/overall only. You can have overall rankings and more specific rankings together in a larger section. I haven't written on any university or college article before so I've been trying to compare with University articles I actually know something about. Normally you'd but the global rankings first and then go into details if you want to. That's really just an article development question which I defer to those interested in expanding the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

A strong jewish community

I have read with some supprise that, according to Launebee, this university

has a strong jewish community

. Is that again your point of view about jew students, or do you have serious references about that ?

Needless to say that after your previous statement, and your rewritting of the article of a well-know "néo-nazi" association[38], you might need to start to carefully chose the words you use. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I already gave you the reference. It is simply the first student association on Facebook. Please stop these continuing outrageous accusations. --Launebee (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It is off-topic anyway, but you can see the Facebook page of Union des Étudiants Juifs de France Assas has a lot more likes and followers than UNEF Assas (twice less)(UNEF being historically the first student union of France) or UNI Assas (10 times less) (UNI being the first right-wing student union). --Launebee (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

So again, you don't a reference to provide, and that's only your opinion that you are voicing about the jewish community.

Refrain from that activity, and stick to the references. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not something written in the article. I was just answering you, since you implied outrageous things. Stop this disruptive activity. --Launebee (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Let me remind you that you wrote your opinion about Richard Descoing alleged homosexuality and drug usein the Sciences Po article : "an overdose linked to his controversial gay livestyle" [39]. None of what you wrote a few month ago was backed by the reference your provided back then [40]. I'm just trying to prevent and other accident.XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

This constant personal attacks are not acceptable. I made an ANI Request. Launebee (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Launebee has pointed out there are still sections that need sources [41] and I have suggested that they provide those here.

Feel free to ping me if there are suggestions here needing action which I have missed, whether from Launebee or anyone else. Or, if you are also willing to action such requests, please indicate that here, especially if you read French as some of these references may be in French. Andrewa (talk) 01:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

A new flock of IP reverting me

So, for months on the French and the English Wikipédia, we had to face a flock of newly created accout, whose only was to revert contributors. It seems that a news strategy is at work, as IPs are now swarming the article. For today only :

• 129.102.254.237 reverting me to hide the warning templates[42]
• 89.185.246.17 reverting me to hide the warning templates [43]
• 89.185.246.13 reverting me to hide the warning templates [44][45]
• 89.185.246.34 reverting me to hide the warning templates [46]

Funny isn't it ?XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The article has been protected. Sad to see that a criminal is using such a method to harrass an other contributors. Sad and disgusting. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources to be added in the notable people section

There is a need to add sources in the notable people section. --Launebee (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)