Talk:Pantheon-Sorbonne University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Paris 1 / Sorbonne / University of Paris[edit]

History / Content of the article[edit]

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:
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[edit]

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)


Warnings: Do not viciously alter the official wikipedia page of the Univ Paris 1 La Sorbonne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (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 ‎ --Launebee (talk) 16:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
False: the opposite is written here: 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xismrd (talkcontribs) 15:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
What game? Indeed, thirteen parisian universities are "La Sorbonne". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Launebee (talkcontribs) 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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Paris1sorbonne.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

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)


Source and update[edit]

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


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[edit]


"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)


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). (talk) 08:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Lacking of sources[edit]

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[edit]

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


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[edit]

Vandalism / False statments repetitly added[edit]

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. -- (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 (talkcontribs) 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: is doing clearly biased editing, like before: --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 (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Few parisian professors[edit]

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

--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[edit]

@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"[edit]

@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)