Talk:Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University

Paris 1 / Sorbonne / University of Paris

History / Content of the article

[Instagram.com/pantheon_soronne]:If you're going to speedy this article again, please check What links here and make sure you fix the redirects to the correct location Sorbonne. If you check the history you'll see that this is where it's supposed to point. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 8 July 2005 01:30 (UTC)

This article talks mostly about the Sorbonne, not Paris 1. As the wikipedia article indicates, the University of Paris (the Sorbonne) was split in 13 universities in the early 1970s. Paris 1 is not the Sorbonne (or at least no more than the other 12), contrary to what this article implies. This seems especially inadequate, as Paris 1 was founded as a "new" university, that would be a break from the University of Paris.

I've done a quick clean up, here is what has been removed:

“ The University of Paris was created at the very beginning of the 13th century, the Collège de Sorbon in 1252.

Thus began an intellectual adventure that was to make France so influential. It was in 1200 that Philippe-Auguste drafted the first official document which gave formal recognition to the University of Paris. In 1231 the importance of the University of Paris was proclaimed in the papal bull Parens Scientarum Est (“mother of the sciences”).

Alongside Oxford and Bologna, Paris is one of the oldest universities in the world.

By the end of the 13th century the influence of the University of Paris was unparalleled, and its contribution to canon law and Christian theology considerable. Its reputation continued to spread and the great of this world, some of whom were to become Vice-Chancellor, became involved in the university.

Despite its support for the French Revolution in 1789, the university was closed for thirteen years until Napoleon formally reinstated it.

During the 19th century, The university gradually adopted the shape and form that we know today (with the exception of the chapel which goes back to Richelieu’s time, the university underwent major reconstruction work from 1885 to 1901).

During the 20th century, as a result of the many conflicts between ancients and moderns, new disciplines gradually found a place in this prestigious temple of learning. As the university expanded, more and more reforms were introduced, but it was the events in 1968 that were to precipitate the breaking up of the university.

”

Precedent section unsigned. --Launebee (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Historical material on the University of Paris before the creation of Paris 1 has nothing to do here, or has to be copied in the 13 successor universities. The same for the date of the creation. --Launebee (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Lunabee: Thank you for you interest on the articles regarding French universities. However, I have some observations:

Regarding your editions on the article of Paris I and Paris II universities. First of all please be careful, if you make a statement please be sure that your RV is exactly what you state. Otherwise, you could "hide" some information without letting know other Wikipedians.

I consider a background information section about the old University of Paris and May 1968 should be something common in all current Paris universities. Please remember that in no sense, it is equivalent to say that Paris I, II, III, IV, V, VI, (and so on...) are equivalent to the old one, but a way to summarize the context in which the universities were created. In this sense, it is also important to state that since all Paris universities articles are in development, the current text on the Histoy section are not complete. Ideally, after that initial background information, all articles should the have sections describing the processes of the creation of the new university, and what is happening nowadays to them.

Having seen some previous editions from several Users, I will strongly encourage to follow either of these the two approaches:

• We either define and reach a consensus on certain guidelines that all the articles of Paris universities should have (considering the reality and specific characteristics that distinguish all these universities from the others), by inviting and interacting with all other Wikipedians that could be interested, in order to define what all Paris Universities (without any exception) should and should not have. Then we will be able to homogenize the style and the information given in all of them.
• Or, we simply follow the guideline established de facto by other top universities articles and all universities FA articles. Following from now on, all the recommendations on the content and style regarding the Main paragraphs, History, Academics, Reputation and Rankings, and so on. In this sense, all Paris universities will also be homogenized in terms of content and style, something that will be more fair that the current heterogenous situatation.

Well, that's all for now. Have a good day!--Kanon6996 (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be unappropriate to copy the same long section in 13 articles, specially if it concerns a common ancestor and non of these 13 actual universities. --Launebee (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hello User:Lunabee. Regarding your opinion on the history section I disagree. To me, all those universities should have some background information about its origins, and several of them have as that main background the University of Paris and the issues that happened on May 1968. That by no means implies that all of them should have the the same long section as you mistakenly think. The improvement of that section goes in line with the goal to connect the background with the university of each article, of course.--Kanon6996 (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@C.Fred:What do you think of that issue ? @Kanon6996: Please don't place the contributions in unchronological order or create a new title if one already exist, thanks! Moreover, you are doing the things you are talking about, sorry. --Launebee (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Launebee. I am sorry, but you are not answering. You were the one who moved the discussion in an unchronological order. And then, the title is different because the discussion I started is different, I am asking for your opinion and the opinion of other Wikipedians regarding the general issues on all Parisian universities. I am still waiting for an answer and for the participation of other Wikipedians, that could help us giving us a general and neutral point of view regarding these issues.--Kanon6996 (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• C.Fred: I would also welcome your neutral opinion, since that will help us to reach a general consensus and avoid any edition war. In my opinion, right now there is a different treatment regarding all Parisian universites (which have as its common ancestor the old University of Paris). Even though, the discussion is right now in this talk page, I have some observations regarding Launebee editions on the article Panthéon-Assas University. Therefore, what I propose now is a general dialogue in order to define a consensus on the type of information that should be given in all Parisian universities (I-XIII). Thank you in advance for you opinion.Kanon6996 (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Kanon6996 I don't see which question I don't answer, but you continue to revert my editing while refusing to discuss. --Launebee (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• As I stated above, I am concerned about the different treatments that Parisean Universities are having right now. I also want to edit the article of Pantheon-Assas University since I am also concerned with some of your editions ther. However, before doing that I want to reach a general consensus that should be applied for both Paris I and II universities, and extensevely to all 13 Parisian Universities so far, regarding what all they should have and what all they should not have. Kind regards.--Kanon6996 (talk) 06:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• • I am personally concerned about your editing. For example, why do you let Xmirst put clearly false statements in the article but in the same time are struggling for other things talking about general consensus? --Launebee (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Because you made nothing to delete the false statements included by Xismrd, even though you editied the article yourself after this inclusion of false statements, I did it myself. Please adopt a neutral point of view and don't let everything pass as soon as it is elogious for Paris 1. Thanks! (see above, neutral point of view section) --Launebee (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest to try to reach a general consensus and guideline in order to keep the same standards for all Parisian universities articles (that now have different information and different standards regarding the main paragraphs, history, reputation and ranking, etc). See also, for instanc, the cases of Paris III, IV, and VI.--Kanon6996 (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't have the time to discuss on all the parisian universities, sorry. The point here is this article. --Launebee (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Official Name

Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne refers to itself in its brochure (retrieved 2008-08-22) as University of Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne in English.

Please also see the naming guidelines for French universities.

MyPOV (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne refers to itself in its website (retrieved 2010-06-20) as Panthéon Sorbonne University in English.

Contraponto1 (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Dead links, return to University of Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne. See the naming guidelines for French universities. --Launebee (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• This has now changed, and the university clearly refers to itself (and the Ministry of Higher Education and Research refers to it) as Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, so Paris 1 should appear in the title. MyPOV (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Inheritance

Warnings: Do not viciously alter the official wikipedia page of the Univ Paris 1 La Sorbonne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.65.191.54 (talk) 15:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC) University of Paris 1 is referred to "the Sorbonne", because it is the main inheritor of the Faculté de Droit et Sciences Economiques de Paris and the Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines de Paris (La Sorbonne).

Warning: adding whithout signing of ‎86.65.191.54 --Launebee (talk) 16:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

False: the opposite is written here: http://www.sorbonne.fr/etablissement/les-universites/universite-pantheon-assas-paris-2/ Panthéon-Assas is the main inheritor of the Sorbonne Law Faculty --Launebee (talk) 16:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

All France know Paris 1 is la Sorbonne, but clearly not you. Don't play word game. http://www.sorbonne.fr/etablissement/les-universites/universite-pantheon-sorbonne-paris-1/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xismrd (talk • contribs) 15:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

What game? Indeed, thirteen parisian universities are "La Sorbonne". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Launebee (talk • contribs) 00:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, the main inheritor of the Sorbonne, a basically humanities (or theology) institution is not Paris 1 (multidisciplinary) nor Assas (law and economics) but Paris-Sorbonne (humanities). --Launebee (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Xismrd, please stop putting false statements in the article. --Launebee (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Kleuske: this article has got promotional content and is creating a confusion with the University of Paris (Panthéon-Sorbonne would be "La Sorbonne", the motto of the university of Paris in here, history of the University of Paris and not specifically this university, etc.) It seems an edit warring has occured recently. The version of the other user ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pantheon-Sorbonne_University&oldid=807859746 ) seems neutral, and without the confusion with Sorbonne University though. --213.174.99.136 (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Paris1sorbonne.jpg

Image:Paris1sorbonne.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Rankings

Source and update

A source would be good. So would an update (the 200 ones have been out for ages). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.209.28 (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Divisions

Divide in fields is a lot more appropriate than divide in sources, it is an encyclopedia, not a catalog. --Launebee (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• It is not a matter of what you think or what I think, but a matter on how things are. The current consensus in FA of universities is to describe the rankings and reputations in a whole section, dividing by sources, and not by fields.--Kanon6996 (talk) 06:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• • Please prove your point. Such general consensus (it means something on which most people agree) doesn't exist. --Launebee (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • 3O: my version is this one:[1] --Launebee (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

About the 3O request: The request for a Third Opinion made in regard to this dispute has been removed (i.e. rejected) because 3O, like all other forms of moderated content dispute resolution at Wikipedia requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. Once that occurs, if you are still at a stalemate then you can reapply at 3O or for some other form of dispute resolution. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC) (3O volunteer)

OK. The only statment (general consensus) is not accurate, this is an encyclopedia so divide the section by source makes no sense, in my opinion. --Launebee (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Unjustified statements

Library

"beautiful Paris 1 library which has a collection of almost three million books" Does it refer to the library of the Sorbonne, Sainte-Geneviève, the "Tolbiac" (centre Pierre Mendès-France) library, or something else? Apokrif 16:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

UFRs

Use of an acronym w/o explanation is especially unfortunate in an English-language article about a non-English-language institution. Does "UFRs" refer to "Unitiés de formation et de researche" as in some Francophone African institutions I found by Googling? If so, that should be stated at first appearance; if not, the actual meaning should be given.

Thanks to whoever clears this up! GeorgeTSLC (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, UFR stands for "Unité de formation et de recherche", it is an administrative unit, most universities prefer to use the old "Faculty" for their UFR. A new trend is the grouping of several UFRs in large Schools, such as the Sorbonne Law School (UFR 1 Public Affairs, UFR 5 Business Law, UFR 7 International Studies, UFR 12 Social Law and UFR 26 General Law Studies).86.65.59.50 (talk) 08:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Lacking of sources

This article lacks sources. I added some sources but put a source banner where it lacks the most. --Launebee (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

International section

I added a neutrality templates for the international section: highly elogious but with no source. --Launebee (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Campus

Parisian universities have no campus, do not use that word in the text. --Launebee (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Launebee: From whom does the university rent space for classes, then, if they have no buildings of their own? That's the common meaning of campus: the physical location of the school. —C.Fred (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@C.Fred: French universities have their own building, but nobody lives there, like in the campuses in the US. Is it still actually a "campus"? --Launebee (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Launebee: Yes, if it's the location where instruction takes place. I know several schools that do not have student housing (dormitories) but still have a campus where classes are taught. —C.Fred (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@C.Fred: OK, thank you! --Launebee (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Vandalism / False statments repetitly added

Someone tries to undo all the improvements of the article with source and justification each time, without any explanation. If you disagree with one changing, please say why. --Launebee (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Launebee. During the last month, you have edited the article Pantheon-Sorbonne University in a biased way. The article needs to be rewritten and restructured but having in mind the NPOV. The same applies to the article to Panthéon-Assas University, although in a different sense. --73.212.115.205 (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear user, all the changes I put were followed by sources. I added sources even on already existing statments. It is true this article lacks sources, but not my editing. --Launebee (talk) 10:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Launebee asked me to step in and have a look at the article and the discussions surrounding it. I'm not biased in any way, so could you please clarify which elements you find to be biased? PS:I can already tell you I'm finding the whole ranking paragraph, or should I say chapter, somewhat excessive. I'd care to find out a bit more on the university, its history and its achievements, rather than to have a full page on how "Eduniversal" (which, by the way, doesn't even have an article on WP.FR?) ranks them. --Midas02 (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Midals02, about the rankings, 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. To detemine which is second, I personally counted all the results, made additions, etc. It seems to be the utility of an encyclopedia to summarize datas, like it is done here. But you have right, it is very specific to France, it would not have been the same for universities from others countries!--Launebee (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Some users and unregistered IP removed a large amount of useful information and replaced the page by the old version, content and logo without giving any adequate and sufficient explanation for removing and altering such amount of up-to-day information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xismrd (talk • contribs) 21:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Xismrd and others try to get back to a version with clearly false statements, no source and some clearly biased rethoric. Please do not edit his version but mine. Thank you! --Launebee (talk) 17:22, 6 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) 18:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Xismrd is trying to do it again. Kanon6996 didn't do anything about that even though he was editing the article and I told him about this biased editing. Therefore, I did it myself. --Launebee (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Launebee. I am not completely sure about calling "false" all the statements of User:Xismrd, such as the use of the term "La Sorbonne", which colloquially applies to Paris 1, 3 and 4. Nevertheless, I will support your opinion regarding the edition of User:Xismrd by now, until (in case it ever happens) the user will have time to argue in favor or against the situation. Regarding the biases and so, I have the same feeling and examples regarding you and the Pantheon-Assas article. So, instead of keep the discussion. --Kanon6996 (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

If you have something precise to say about my editing of Paris 2 university, please do it and do it in the relevant talk page. Please don't express general concern without justification. Paris 2 has sources everywhere, except some cases where it is written, Paris 1 was highly elogious without source. Don't confuse putting a objective statement (my editing of Paris 2) and subjectively praise an institution (some editing of Paris 1), sometimes with false statements. On another hand, a lot of your editing are objective facts so there is no problem, even if it is very good for Paris 1, so the same is to be applied to Paris 2. All the 13 parisian universities are the inheritor of "La Sorbonne", so Paris 1 is not "La Sorbonne" (ie "The Sorbonne"). The Sorbonne is the whole, a part is... part of the Sorbonne. --Launebee (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Is launebee the "lord" of this page, his edition is untouchable? anyway, the page should provide information on one university, not on all Parisian universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.77.212.168 (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Few parisian professors

In Law, only a few of the parisian professors went to Panthéon-Sorbonne, says Cornac. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanon6996 (talk • contribs)

--Launebee (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• How many are "a few"? It does not change the idea, and improves the neutrality if you just same "by professors"

It means that nearly all the professors went elsewhere, if you don't say "a few", you have the reader think the opposite. There is no neutrality issue here. --Launebee (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

One of the main inheritor of the Sorbonne

@C.Fred:What do you think of this sentence ? : "It was established in 1971 as one of the main inheritors of the historical University of Paris (Sorbonne University) after the division of the world's second oldest academic institution."

--Launebee (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Beware, that statement is misleading: "In the 2016/17 QS World University Rankings by Subject, it was ranked among the World's top 100 universities as well as the best in France in several of its main subjects:" --Launebee (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't find it misleading. Or at least, not as much misleading as two statements you support in the Panthéon-Assas University article that say: "Panthéon-Assas University has always been ranked first in law in national rankings[citation needed] and calls itself "the top faculty of law in France".", and "Panthéon-Assas University has always been ranked first in law in national rankings but is not internationally well known by the public."--Kanon6996 (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Those two sentences in another article (so please discuss them there - you tend to discuss things on the wrong page) are only facts with references (they were under, you just added the "citation needed", I put it once again then). The sentence I quote have the reader think that Paris 1 is globally in the top 100. --Launebee (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Refusal to talk / "Fallacious ad hominem attacks"

@Kanon6996: you revert my edition but you don't talk. There is no consensus about having a catalog aspect in Wikipedia. --Launebee (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Launebee, I explicitly mentioned you the reasons of the RV. Please do not fall into fallcious ad hominem attacks. I am still waiting for your answer regarding the whole issues regarding your editions on the articles of all Paris universities. We cannot keep threatening one different from others.--Kanon6996 (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Kanon6996 You have to discuss, it is not a threat or a "fallacious ad hominem attack" to ask you to explain your point. The reasons you give are wrong: for instance, where do you see the "general consensus" you talk about? You edit the sentence "The university was created by few professors of the Faculty of Law and Economics [reference]" talking of NPOV in spite of the fact that the reference says that. You pretend that you edit the date of creation (1971) but not at all, it was in my version. Etc.

C.Fred, do you think I am asking too much?

--Launebee (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Since we disagree on that sentence, I removed it and detailed the issue in the history part. Do you agree? --Launebee (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yes it is since you are attacking a person, saying "he doesn't want to discuss". I could argue the same with you (saying things such as that you don't want to discuss since you are not answering my main concerns) but I won't since that is not the main issue. When I say general consensus I mean the general consensus in Wikipedia, especially taking some featured articles as an example. In that sense, rankings should be describe by the source, not by field.--Kanon6996 (talk) 06:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• • Relating in the edit summary the fact that you kept doing the same editing, without disuccing the issue in talk page is not a "fallacious ad hominem attack"... --Launebee (talk) 06:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Kanon6996, because you made nothing to delete the false statements included by Xismrd, even though you editied the article yourself after this inclusion of false statements, I did it myself. Please adopt a neutral point of view and don't let everything pass as soon as it is elogious for Paris 1. Thanks! --Launebee (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Please also consider that before I came to edit this article, it was deeply biased: [2], in great part because of your editing. I just put it in a encyclopedical aspect. --Launebee (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Removal of content

Arseitraunnit, this edit seems to remove content for no reason given. The removed content appears encyclopedic and at least some of it is properly sourced. How is the truncated introduction more neutral? Andrewa (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Some things were against what was decided in talk page. I understand however that I should remove more precisely what is not neutral. The user seems to have revert the article into an old version with unaccuracies and not updated information. --Arseitraunnit (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about disputed April 29 to May 2, 2018 edits

Hi User:EpéeDeLaProvidence, User:Xuo Tran, and others who I welcome to join this discussion.

The two named editors above cannot agree on content. See the history and click the "prev"s to see the changes and what happened. So, I have reverted to the 09:43, 18 April 2018 version before this content dispute began. Please discuss changes here and get consensus before introducing them to the article. Please observe WP:BRD and do not revert each other. Try to compromise. As an administrator, and because this is a content dispute, I will involve myself only to prevent disruption. Please be patient and polite and seek common ground.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

We have two differences:

1. The Tolbiac events account: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pantheon-Sorbonne_University&diff=839325875&oldid=839325680

Epée is saying that the police framed the occupants by putting Molotov cocktails, that the violence came from fascist groups exclusively, etc. but all of that is not in the sources. Moreover, he wants to delete the information about the Twitter account that many major newspapers are talking about. His makes comparison with May 1968, or talks about things that are not in the sources that deals with the Tolbiac blockades.

2. the rankings: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pantheon-Sorbonne_University&diff=839325680&oldid=839324727

Epée wants to put old rankings from 2014, and remove some rankings from the introduction.

--Xuo Tran (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, Epée added that video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FfpjymkBV0 as a reference (I did not see it before), which is clear vandalism. Anna Frodesiak: isn't vandalism a disruption? It seems to be somebody from the occupying group who tries to put her POV. --Xuo Tran (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I cannot view youtube here in China where it is blocked. What is in the video? Does it really constitute vandalism? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak: They block all Youtube in the PRC? It is a video of a girl ("Charlotte") taking part of the (illegal) occupation of Tolbiac singing, with a guitar, "No god nor master". It has nothing to do with any of the content of the article. This Charlotte is probably Epée herself, or a friend.

Moreover, if I may, I put a request for comment, but all the editing on Tolbiac events of Epée, who is probably one of the vandals when you read how she writes on the events, are vandalism to me. To put in an encyclopedia that the police framed (twice!) the illegal occupants by putting Molotov cocktails, to write that only fascist groups have used violence against the occupants even if the press (and many videos) show violence from their part (on an MP that came on the site included) to write in the article that occupying with violence a university, vandalize it and making 1 million euros of damages of public goods is a "in the rightful exercise of their civil rights and human rights", trying to justify these damages by putting in the article that it is far less than not-correlated events that took place 50 years ago, etc. etc. goes beyond editing of Wikipedia and constitutes repetitive vandalism on the encyclopedia. This video thing only makes it more obvious and shows that it is somebody at least very close to the occupants (many of them are in police custody, but many escaped and inquiries are being made to find them ; they are part of extremist groups on the same line than those that burned several places in Paris the 1st May – you can see online over the internet –, I know little about Wikipedia but I do not think these groups should be allowed to do propaganda on Wikipedia).

--Xuo Tran (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not those things constitute vandalism is irrelevant at this point. This is because consensus for changes by either of you is required. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand. I thought vandalists were blocked on Wikipedia. So on Wikipedia, if people put irrelevant Youtube of themselves or friend singing, they face no consequence? Anyway, it does not seem that Epée is up for discussion. --Xuo Tran (talk) 06:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, vandals also get warned. EpéeDeLaProvidence has not been. So, the focus here is the article. EpéeDeLaProvidence cannot make changes to the article unless they are agreed upon here first. That is what matters right? That is also very good for you. If you write below something like: "I want to add xxxxx to the article. Any objections." then wait 4 days, and nobody contests it, then you can have the article your way. If EpéeDeLaProvidence doesn't discuss, then User:EpéeDeLaProvidence doesn't have the right to influence the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. --Xuo Tran (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Note I have locked the article for 24 hrs. Sort this out here please. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I put two days ago the two versions of the article (diffs), somebody can still tell us if she has an objection with my version. --Xuo Tran (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It has been 5 days and there has been no talk here, so, as Anna wrote I think, I put the article my way. I removed the request for comments I put before. Anna Frodesiak: you said vandals get warned, perhaps Épée should be? --Xuo Tran (talk) 08:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Your patience is admirable, Xuo Tran. Well done. Yes, you can make the changes you said you would.

I will not warn EpéeDeLaProvidence because they have not been around for 4 days. If they return and make, what you see as, inappropriate edits, please let me know and I will see then. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The truth is Xuo Tran presented only elements of facts supported by only partial evidence. It is an unfair and incomplete narrative whose sole purpose is to discredit progressive movements.

I also suspect the judgement of Xuo Tran is clouded. For instance, the systematic removal of Subject ranking of QS from Wikipedia is not supported by fact nor with strong justification.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by EpéeDeLaProvidence (talk • contribs) 17:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC) 

The omission of the information with regard to the violent perpetrators' identity is not acceptable. Those people had nothing to do with the student occupants. They belong to a notorious far-right group in France, and it has been massively covered in media (link: https://www.huffingtonpost.fr/2018/04/07/universite-bloquee-a-tolbiac-une-milice-dextreme-droite-attaque-des-grevistes-en-pleine-nuit_a_23405310/).

The editing might misguide the public and maske the true identity of violent perpetrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EpéeDeLaProvidence (talk • contribs) 17:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the violence, there was indeed far-right groups there, and it can be written, but, according to the sources, violence from both sides was spotted. --Xuo Tran (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I've protected the article for three days. Please use this talk page and get consensus. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the subject ranking, I would absolutely not object to the introduction of a list of all the rankings if they are up to date, which is not what was done here (only the date was changed, not the content). --Xuo Tran (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 May 2018

I think administrator Anna Frodesiak has mishandled the situation. Indeed, the aforementioned administrator acted unilaterally to delete all my editing and kept the editing of the other disputant.

I was the one who filed the page protection in the place, because of the on-going editing warring that occurred last week.

As you can see in History, user Xuo Tran's editing has provoked several reactions. He introduced content on a political, sensitive, controversial and recent happening (which have not received thorough police investigation and tribunal judgement), Xuo Tran has disturbed irremediably the peace of Wikipedia community.

Xuo Tran deliberately diminishes the school. He kept the worst ranking record possible on the page and deleted-- for no reason-- the positive ranking record.

The university page has never witnessed such agitation and polarizing opinions for a fairly long time. People like me have been silently monitoring and maintaining the page for years out of citizen responsibility. Then came a new user Xuo Tran introducing content that has been contested by several Wikipedia users (not just me), the damage has been severe.

I have asked Anna Frodesiak to revert the page back to 09:43, 18 April 2018 version, the version prior to the editing war. Because the current page protection preserves only Xuo Tran's editing, disregarding the well-researched and reasonable arguments advanced by me and others.

With no holistic review of the evidence, hearing from others, the course of action is questionable. EpéeDeLaProvidence (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

For the record, on 18:58, 2 May 2018, I reverted to the 09:43, 18 April 2018 version.

EpéeDeLaProvidence repeatedly ignored my requests to use the article talk page before making changes.

Xuo Tran made changes on 23:45, 2 May 2018‎, then followed the rules by suggesting edits on 08:33, 4 May 2018 and asking if anyone had an objection. EpéeDeLaProvidence, you were silent for days. No objections from you. Then Xuo Tran made the edits suggested at the talk page between 08:40, 7 May 2018‎ and 09:24, 7 May 2018‎.

You had from 23:45, 2 May 2018 to 09:24, 7 May 2018 ‎use the article talk. You did not. You appeared 19:31, 7 May 2018‎ and made changes without using the article talk.

So, no. I will not revert to the 09:43, 18 April 2018 version. The current version of the article is considered the last stable version, period.

Requesting an edit is the wrong way to do this. It is asking another administrator to make a judgement.

For the record, administrators do not care about the content in this content dispute. So long as the content is not a blatant violation of policy, it is not our concern. Our concern is preventing disruption.

So, discuss changes here before making changes to the article. This seems clear to everyone except you, EpéeDeLaProvidence. EpéeDeLaProvidence, do you understand what "...discuss changes here before making changes to the article..." means?

Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear Anna, thank you for clarifying your position and making us understand where you are from. I apologize that my time was required elsewhere in the previous assigned discussion period.

However, there is absolutely no excuse for protecting Xuo Tran's current editing, especially considering that several editors have challenged this version's neutrality.

Xuo Tran has ignored criticisms and challenges systematically, all my points raised in the talk page were disregarded with disrepect for Wikipedia community's rules, showing no consideration for contributing to the quality of Wikipedia page. The act constitutes a violation to Wikipedia's editing rule "Write neutrally and with due weight".

The content of Xuo Tran's editing is questioned. Therefore despite its procedural conformity, the editing presents irregularity and reflects poorly on administration and Wikipedia. In your defense and in that of Wikipedia, I had taken necessary steps to prevent what would have become irremediable.

There is no need to thank me, though. I ask only that right steps, impartial position be taken here. And should you disagree, I have all my right to use a third-party arbitrator. Unless, you are telling me that my rights are deprived?

Dear Anna, please clearly state that you are not taking a partial position and will prevent a meaningless editing war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EpéeDeLaProvidence (talk • contribs) 11:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello EpéeDeLaProvidence. Nice to see you here.

First, I am not protecting Xuo Tran's current editing. I am saying that the current (12:12, 16 May 2018) version is the last stable version. This is because Xuo Tran gave ample time for you to object and you remained silent.

Second, I did clearly state that I am not taking a partial position and will prevent a meaningless editing war with the above statement beginning "...For the record, administrators do not care about the..."

So, now it is time for you to discuss, with others, how you would like the article to be.

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Put the past behind us

Hello User:EpéeDeLaProvidence and User:Xuo Tran:

I see a lot of complaints about one another. I see talk of investigation and tribunal judgement and addressing grievances, etc.

This is an encyclopedia, not a court of law.

Let's drop all of this and focus on building the article.

See you at the next thread.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The next thread - improving the article / veto power over the article

Hi User:EpéeDeLaProvidence and User:Xuo Tran and others:

So, what do you want in the article, out of the article, etc.

Take it bit by bit. One thing at a time. Say what you want and why. Keep it concise. Let's sort it out.

What is the first individual matter to discuss?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

In any text meaning is also communicated through framing. The current framing of the article suggests that the creation of the University was almost a pet project of a couple of professors, using their personal and individual background to bring the name Sorbonne and Panthéon to the new institution. This is historically inaccurate and simply preposterous: this is one of the biggest universities of one of the oldest and most strictly regulated higher educational systems in the world. Both the Panthéon and Sorbonne are highly sensitive and central symbols of the french State. To suggest that the University was allowed to take those names because of the previous career of some civil servants (professors) involved in its administration, is simply ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MapcheckerParis (talk • contribs) 01:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The framing does not suggest that at all and follows what is said in the source [3] --Xuo Tran (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Nice to see you discussing things. Please continue the above thread.

I've reverted you both. Please discuss changes here first.

I've protected the article again for 3 days.

Seek compromise. Get agreement. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

By reading the history of this talk page I learn that you don't care about the content of the article, just about its stability (!). You even revert back my correction on the Sorbonne Inter University Library, reinstating a FALSE fact in the article, to keep it stable. Hopefully this thread will guide whoever in the future has the time to waste and nothing better to do than negotiating the truth with wikipedia's bizarre governance structure.

- The BIS is managed by Panthéon Sorbonne. - The names Panthéon and Sorbonne (as well as the operations of the university on those sites) are not there because some professors that worked in it after 1971 came from those faculties. - The establishment of the University DID follow the Faure law of november 12, 1968 - The University of Paris WAS divided into 9 and then 13 universities, some of which maintained operations in the historical sites and hence decided to keep the name Sorbonne (or Panthéon).

As the first matter to discuss I would raise the issue of how can an individual user block the editing of an article, even pushing false information into it? The obligation to reach consensus gives this person effectively a veto power, based on what?

MapcheckerParis (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

MapcheckerParis and others, again, I do not care about the content so long as there is no policy violation.

The current version is the one from when an editor said "I want the article to be this way" and patiently waited for input or objections. None came. That version is now the last stable version. I know it is the wrong version. It is always the wrong version according to someone. If it is the right version according to you, it is the wrong version according to someone else. Please do not explain to me why it is the wrong version according to you.

All editors concerned:

Please stop complaining. Instead, point by point, discuss with each other improvements and get consensus. That is the only way the article can change. Because you all disagree, if I unprotect it, there will be a revert war and utter chaos. I am only here to prevent that sort of disruption.

So, discuss, compromise, state your case, address each other, provide facts and sources, etc.

Thank you for your understanding.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello MapcheckerParis Anna Frodesiak User:Xuo Tran. There are serious framing issues with the current article. As it currently is, the article misleads Wikipedia users. This is undeniable. I suggest that the entire topic on Tolbiac blockage be deleted, ranking restored, and history revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EpéeDeLaProvidence (talk • contribs) 17:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Since we all agreed on this course of action, I will proceed to modify the article with all your blessings. Thank you for your support :) EpéeDeLaProvidence

For the record, the modifications by EpéeDeLaProvidence were made. One editor objected. I reverted as disputed edits. EpéeDeLaProvidence restored them. I blocked EpéeDeLaProvidence for 2 weeks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I still obviously disagree. --Xuo Tran (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Bibliothèque de la Sorbonne (Bibliothèque Interuniversitaire de la Sorbonne, BIS)

The BIS is administered by Panthéon-Sorbonne. Don't take my word for it, read the Library governing convention (in French) : http://www.bibliotheque.sorbonne.fr/biu/spip.php?rubrique294. I don't know if it is appropriate to quote entire sections of the convention in here, but it'll do it if it's useful. For those unfamiliar with what an administrative "rattachement" means, the Convention governing the Library clearly states that administrative "rattachement" (linkage) to Panthéon Sorbonne and the administrative consequences of it.

For verification you can read the convention that does explicitly state the attributions and obligations of the "université de rattachement" (Panthéon-Sorbonne). Among the most important ones, decision over the library's budget, the management of the library's personnel, management of the library's accounting. For this specific tasks, Panthéon-Sorbonne receives a dedicated budget from the central government, and the other universities allocate specific contributions that are entrusted to Panthéon-Sorbonne, which then allocates them for the administration of the library.

You can independently verify this in the Library's convention (in French) : http://www.bibliotheque.sorbonne.fr/biu/spip.php?rubrique294 and remark all of the specific tasks involving the "université de rattachement". We can discuss the convention article by article if that is useful. This by no means designates Panthéon-Sorbonne as the "owner" of the library, just as the administrator that all of the other involved universities agreed upon.

Furthermore, accessory to what the convention stipulates, the Chancellerie presents the library with two clearly separate sections. One section including Panthéon-Sorbonne (the administrator) and another including the co-contracting universities (Paris 3, Paris 4, Paris 5 and Paris 7): http://www.sorbonne.fr/etablissement/les-bibliotheques/bibliotheque-de-la-sorbonne/.

Please refer to specifics of the convention for further discussion. Thanks. MapcheckerParis (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this. User:Xuo Tran: MapcheckerParis awaits your input. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I answered there: Talk:Bibliothèque de la Sorbonne --Xuo Tran (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Your answer contains only an opinion, it does not address any of the specific concerns raised. It contains no independently verifiable reference to back your claim. Here is a summary of my response in there:

The administrative matters dealing with personnel and most importantly, budget, are explicitly placed under the exclusive responsibility of the university of rattachement. The university of rattachement receives a dedicated budget from the central government, for the specific tasks of administering the library (Article II - 4 - Financial means). The budget of the library is submitted by the director FOR APPROVAL to the university of rattachement (Article III - 3 - Attributions). The accountant of the university of rattachement represents the only accounting service taking part in the governing body (Article III - 4 - Composition). The governing body administers the library and submits the budget FOR APPROVAL to the university of rattachement.

My point is that the administrative rattachement implies a direct involvement of the university in the day-to-day administration of the library, as well as a specific role in the administrative decisions and responsibilities.

Note that every single statement I've made is backed by detailed references that can be verified by you or anybody else. MapcheckerParis (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak, I've reviewed the Wikipedia:Consensus and there seems to be a course of action when two editors cannot reach consensus. I have made an effort to present verifiable and well referenced evidence for a very limited change to the article. Let's not forget that Xuo Tran is not the only editor or reader of Wikipedia. The options as I see them in the policy are :

• Third opinion
• Noticeboard
• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Formal mediation
• Requests for comment
• Village pump

Or even if necessary:

• Administrative intervention

Furthermore, I formally submit to you in your administrator role, a concern regarding a potential policy violation by Xuo Tran when reverting (blocking) changes to the article:

• Violation of Neutral Point of View:
  • "In Humanities, The Sorbonne library, mostly administered by Paris Sorbonne University but open to Panthéon-Sorbonne students"
• "*Bibliothèque interuniversitaire de la Sorbonne, administered by Sorbonne University"

Both present Sorbonne University (former Paris-Sorbonne) in a deliberate favorable and singular manner, above the 5 co-contractant universities and in place of the actual administrator university

• Inclusion of non verifiable content in lieu of verifiable content:

During my discussion I've been unable to compare detailed and reputable referenced claims when one of my edits has been reverted, by a simple comment saying "no it doesn't" or "no, it's not in there" AND NOT BACKED by any detailed reference.

Can we involve more Wikipedia administrators to get some perspective on the issue? MapcheckerParis (talk) 04:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

MapcheckerParis, you say above that "...two editors cannot reach consensus...", and yet you two have barely engaged each other in discussion. You both simply post at my talk, or here, with complaints about the other person, or your point of view. Seldom have I seen you have a back and forth discussion where you actually respond to one another and make progress.

Please do as you wish. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Xuo Tran, as I did on May 22, 2018 (see above), I'm inviting you to respond with specific and verifiable references to the library's governing convention. I will be taking steps for the resolution of this dispute when unable to reach consensus. The underlying goal is to improve the reading rating of this article. Currently it is at "Start-Class" level in the quality scale and the editing suggestions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_France/Assessment#Quality_scale) are: 'Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use.". I will attempt that for the specific section regarding the administration of the library (discussed above). MapcheckerParis (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting Xuo Tran. Xuo Tran, please do your best to compromise and find content you both agree should be in the article. Just see if the sources are reliable and the content is suitable for the article. If both of you (and others) are concise and fair and responsive to one another, I'm sure you can sort this out and the article can become very good. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak: I already did (see under and in the library talk page). --Xuo Tran (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Xuo Tran. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC about the administration of the Sorbonne library

Should the article and the photo description mention "administered by Panthéon-Sorbonne" ? Should "administered by Sorbonne University" be removed ? MapcheckerParis (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

As said in the library talk page, my opinion is yes. --Xuo Tran (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go ahead and make the change. MapcheckerParis (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Anna Frodesiak reverted many times sock edits wanting to force a version of the introduction of this article against the last consensus in talk page ( but appear to be now blocked in China. I reverted the disputed parts of the page to the last consensus. It seems one alumni of Paris 1 is on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Paris_1_Pantheon-Sorbonne&diff=847704490&oldid=847578991

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Paris_1_Pantheon-Sorbonne&diff=845660318&oldid=845609210

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Paris_1_Pantheon-Sorbonne&diff=843109751&oldid=843070795

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Paris_1_Pantheon-Sorbonne&diff=843015372&oldid=843014666

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Paris_1_Pantheon-Sorbonne&diff=842131331&oldid=842093794

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Paris_1_Pantheon-Sorbonne&diff=841531951&oldid=841440480

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Paris_1_Pantheon-Sorbonne&diff=841140570&oldid=841068229

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Paris_1_Pantheon-Sorbonne&diff=839331016&oldid=839325875

--Xuo Tran (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Another time: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Paris_1_Pantheon-Sorbonne&type=revision&diff=913221358&oldid=912604968

--103.72.163.21 (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I can confirm that two times recently, IP addresses have tried to put old information, or inappropriately change the introduction, or put a part of the text in comment so that it is harder to see that it was removed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Paris_1_Pantheon-Sorbonne&diff=917963790&oldid=916765309

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Paris_1_Pantheon-Sorbonne&type=revision&diff=920449035&oldid=920445357

Delfield (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

New disruptive editing (old positive ranking inserted) by Marco Carroso: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Paris_1_Pantheon-Sorbonne&diff=prev&oldid=979486904 --Delfield (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)