Talk:Sciences Po

Introduction

Please stop removing ranking in the introduction and putting laudatory inaccurate statements.

By world reputation, it not ranked by THE among the top 100 in the world and the top 3 of France. QS : Social Sciences: 69th (4rd in France) THE : Social Sciences: 68th (2nd in France). It is not " one of the most prestigious and selective European schools in the social sciences."

--Delfield (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

A new QS ranking by subject has now been published according to which Sciences Po is ranked 2nd in Politics and International Relations (together with Princeton). So this needs to be updated in the description. https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/university-subject-rankings/2020/politics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.156.161.98 (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Merging discussion

It has been suggested that Sciences Po Law School be merged into this page. (Discuss) Proposed since February 2020. wbm1058 (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding the controversy about the law in Sciences Po / Sockpuppet investigation

Hello User:MePhisto,

I used the sources provided by LawStudentJam in the Sciences Po Law School article. If you had a conclusion in your previous discussions, please give us a link, but do not make personal attacks and remove content with source.

Regarding the ranking in the lead, I think I read that it should be either complete or there should not be anything, but it should not be only the best ranking as if it was a global one.

If you disagree about something, please let me know.

Thanks!

--Delfield (talk) 08:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

HelloDelfield,

your edits are clearly part of a sockpuppet-account of the banned account"Launabee". You have been banned from making direct edits to articles on French academic institutions on 11 October 2017 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Launebee#Topic_ban).

There have been previous sockpuppet investigations after your ban, this is merely the latest, unfortunate episode (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Launebee/Archive).

Your identity is clearly visible through 1. your content-behavior, 2. your language-style.

1. Launabee has continuously attempted to diminish the reputation of Sciences Po, specifically the Sciences Po law school. At the same time Launabee has written promotional content on the law school of Paris II Panthéon-Assas. Your edits clearly, unmistakably fit this pattern. For example:

"In 2009, Sciences Po created the "Sciences Po Law School". It is not a faculty of law, nor does it give undergraduate degree in law, nor does it have its own building, but it is an administrative appellation (see the disambiguation page, third meaning).

In 2008, partly as an answer to the announcement of the creation of a "law school" in this new meaning in Sciences Po, University of Paris II Panthéon-Assas, created a "law college" (undergraduate level) and then a "law school" (graduate level) on top of its faculty of law to attract top students in France (see the disambiguation page, second meaning). It was widely reported in the media as the creation of a "way of excellence in law" for "brilliant students". Several universities followed this model, and created these highly selective schools.)

2. Launabee has used an incorrect, French-style English-grammar and wording. The edits of Delfield fit into this pattern. This includes sentences such as "They managed to have the education in law to have a special place in the French Code of Education", or the wording "take a masters degree".

Im referring this matter to a sockpuppet-investigation. This is unfortunate. We all could be using our energy more productively.

MePhisto (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear MePhisto,

If you have a problem with another French user, please see with him. I used the sources provided by another user.

I tried a new formulation, I hope this will be ok for you.

I mention Paris II since many many sources are talking about the dispute about the name "law school", so I thought it is worth mentioning, but others can give their opinion too.

--Delfield (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The sockpuppet investigation against Delfield is open: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Launebee. I hope this unfortunate matter can be settled objectively and swiftly, without yet another tiresome editing war. We have been here before, several times. To all users with an interest in maintaining good faith editing: Please feel free to contribute to the investigation.

MePhisto (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Olivier Duhamel and sexual violence

An entire section added has been written inaccuratly pretending facts that are not in the sources and is using also poor source (Gala). It's like a gossip article. I added some tags. Asterix757 (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not surprised, and I think @MePhisto: won't be either.

Junk sources, fraudulent use of references, and abusive promotion of Paris Assas University. Nothing New. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

To both of you: It is all over the news. Gala refuses to publish stolen pictures, so is respectable to me, but there are many many sources. I am changing the sources. XIII: Instead of making once again personal attacks, you could make yourself useful and provide better sources.

"law of silence" is a translation for "omerta", used in many articles, if you have another one, please let me know.

The section is about the policy of Science Po regarding sexual violence. Of course, there is a policy, and the question is to know if this is the right one. Many of the newspaper articles are dealing with Science Po as an institution and their response to sexual violence. The Duhamel story is only part of the problem, even if it made the newspaper talk about it.

https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2021/01/08/sciences-po-c-ur-du-pouvoir-d-olivier-duhamel-ebranle-par-sa-chute_6065551_3224.html

https://www.leparisien.fr/culture-loisirs/sexe-drogue-et-sciences-po-17-05-2015-4776997.php

The accusations come from many people, the first sentence is meant as a summary. I made it shorter, I hope this satisfies everyone now.

--Delfield (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Asterix757, I don't know that Gala is a poor source, you'd have to get a consensus for that at WP:RSN, but Le Monde is more than acceptable. XIIIfromTOKYO, your personal attacks are unacceptable, and your comments untrue. Delfield, the content you entered is WAY excessive: it needs to be seriously condensed, and it needs to focus on the subject of the article, and not on Duhamel. If you don't do that, someone else will--or they may remove it altogether as WP:UNDUE. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)