Talk:Sciences Po

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject France / Paris  (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Paris task force.
WikiProject Libraries (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Universities (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Politics (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


I don't understand why the fr were removed: now the names don't link to any article, which is rather silly.

And yes, we don't need mention of the other IEP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

This is how Wikipedia works: when articles don't exist, you write them. Don't forget that about 5.8 billion people don't speak french. Peco 06:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

But then it should appear clearly from the fact that there is an article in French and none in English that the English version need be written, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 11:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You're new here! That what red link means. Peco 09:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


La Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques is Sciences Po's world-class research institution dedicated to many domains of political and social sciences.

I'm afraid it's not exactly true. The FNSP administrates Sciences po, Sciences po being subbordinated to the FNSP. Peco 15:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Nope. Sciences Po refers both to the whole : IEP and FNSP. That the FNSP administers the IEP is barely relevant here and mentioned elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 11:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Sorry about that. Peco 19:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Listing of Notable Alumnus[edit]

A previous discussion with User: resolved my confusion w.r.t. the listing of Ambassador Paul Bremer in this article. Since Ambassador Bremer was neither "head of state" and he wasn't the president nor prime minister of Iraq either, his listing was moved to World politics and government. Why has he been moved again? This time he's listed under world governance.

For the benefit of those who are a bit sketchy on the topic, the United States government is partitioned into three main branches of government:

  • 1. Executive branch (the President of the United States)
  • 2. Legislative branch
  • 3. Judicial branch

Neither branch has more power over the other; except of course, the President of the United States who has special powers (which apparently is always under both congressional and public scrutiny) that include the authority to veto bills; appoint ambassadors, appoint members of his/her cabinet and the judicial branch (i.e the supreme court); pardon criminals; make executive decisions for the people whom he/she swore to serve, and make use of the United States military as the "Commander in Chief". Ambassador Bremer is not the President of the United States. He was appointed by the President of the United States in 2003 to serve in Iraq (which ended officially on June 28, 2004).

Again, my point is, Ambassador Bremer has been misplaced again.,,,,,<<<<greetings!,,,Ariele 18:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Governance, not Government[edit]

I appreciate the Constitutional lesson, but I'm American (and the one who listed Bremer under International Governance). I think you do not fully understand the distinction between government, which you outline a bit above, and governance. Governance cannot be defined in such a clear, limited, and anachronistic way. Governance is not government, and Paul Bremer is not listed as head of state or government. He is listed as a head of international governance given that he was the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. In essence, Bremer was the American proconsul in Iraq. The term governance is not associated with the formal government of any one state, but is more associated with governing - or with political authority, institutions, and, ultimately, control. Governance in this particular sense denotes formal and informal political institutions or individuals that aim to coordinate and control interdependent social relations and that have the ability to enforce decisions within a given organization, state, region, or on the world stage more generally. This would include a head of the Red Cross or CARE International, a UN Secretary-General, and someone like Paul Bremer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 18:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear anonymous:
If you're going to be headstrong about this, then my only reponse is this:
From the standpoint of those who are reading the Sciences Po article for the very first time, the perception is erroneous. Wikipedia was recently scrutinized for allowing anonymous users to contribute false information. I will repeat again, the ambassador did not have the authority equal to that of the President of the United States. For some reason you and several others seem to think he had and has. And for the benefit of those who are a little fanatical religiously, the ambassador is NOT the Antichrist. There are those who thinks he is.
And to repeat, User: and I concur that the ambassador fits best under government and politics not under world governance.
<Regards>.....Ariele 19:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
p.s. If you think the ambassador should fall under international governance, then you should also consider adding Christian Dior to the list as well. He is, afterall, the king of world fashion.
The anonymous User: has reverted a previous placement of the subject matter. The listing is questionable and conficts with the decision made by others.,,,,Ariele 19:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Your Own Ignorance (compliments of User:[edit]

Sorry, but you clearly do not understand what governmance is vis-a-vis government. I suggest you look it up b/c the distinction is certainly not erroneous.

There's no need to apologize...for the one who calls another "ignorant" has his/her shortcomings too.,,,Ariele 19:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Your explanation for moving his listing [back to your version] under notable alumnus is debatable. The transitional government is a misnomer [my opinion] because Iraqi ministeries were up and running very shortly after the old regime was ousted.

The ambassador's listing under world governance does appear to elevate his status to the far reaches of the universe. Is that how he would have wanted to be remembered?

Is that you again User:Geo Swan?,,,,,<<<haloo again,,,,Ariele 05:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

use of the article[edit]

The school should be referred to as "Sciences Po" not "the Sciences Po". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 11:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

My edits[edit]

I noticed a few major problems with this article which I have since tried to fix. First, this article was way too long - it included a series of unnecessary information (e.g. listing some 30 institutional alliances in separate sections and sub-sections), and often repeated itself in many areas. Second, there was not a single reference made on the page. Third, there was not a condensed overview of the school listed at the top of the page - this is common for universities on wikipedia, partly b/c it allows people to understand the nature of an article quickly, without having to read or scan the whole article. Anyway, that basically sums up my edits - but I'll certainly try to do more... particularly vis-a-vis referencing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 10:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Infobox edit[edit]

"Excellence, Innovation, Diversité" is not an actual motto, either official or unofficial, just some recent slogan, used e.g. on the occasion of Condoleezza Rice's remarks in February 2005 [1]. Actually the only Google results are Wikipedia pages... [2]. See the talk page of the article in French.

I also made a minor correction regarding the Sciences Po Library, which has never been a "political science arm" of the BNF.

Keriluamox 12:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

MPA and MBA[edit]

There needs to be detailed sections on each of the Sciences-Po 12 master degrees, but especially on the new MPA and MBA programs! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 23:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


We also need more legitimiately uploaded pictures of Sciences-Po. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 23:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


Whether or not we capitalize it, shouldn't we at least spell "Études" correctly? Backspace 02:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
In French, it is a mistake to add a diacritical mark (accent) to a capital letter. Moreover, "études" should not have a capital E in this instance, because only the first letter of a title is capitalised in French. One could even argue, as Keriluamox has, that "institut" should not be capitalised because there are, in fact, several instituts d'études politiques in France (cf. However, because the Institut d'études politiques was established long before the others were created and since you can still use this name (without specifying the town) to refer to the Paris IEP, I think that the correct title for this page should be: Institut d'études politiques de Paris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oddgame (talkcontribs) 16:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Re diacritical marks on capital letters, the referred page says the opposite: "L'Académie française recommande donc l'usage d'accent ou tréma sur une majuscule, tout comme l'utilisation de la cédille et de la ligature. Ainsi les publications de qualité écrivent-elles les majuscules (tout comme les capitales) avec les accents et autres diacritiques, au même titre que les minuscules. En effet, les signes diacritiques ont un rôle important dans les langues qui les utilisent." No doubt Wikipedia is a quality publication. But I agree that in this case it should be "d'études". Davidships (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo-sciences-po.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Logo-sciences-po.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 06:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


This article only mentions the school in Paris, the introduction and the whole layout must change or a new article must be created.Sheodred (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge Generalpoteito (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

· The article École Libre des Sciences Politiques should be merged into this article. It is the same school. •••Life of Riley (TC) 20:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

·I second this statement. The École Libre des Sciences Politiques is the institutional ancestor of Sciences Po, so that the relevant information about it could be directly merged into the History section of this article, which would serve the purpose of clarity for everybody. SalimJah (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Jose Socrates as an Alumni[edit]

I wonder why any mention of Former Prime Minister Jose Socrates as a current student of Po is washed over by this user Life of Gray. I think that to mention this is a valuable asset for this institution since rarely a Prime Minister goes to School after he is in such an elevated position. Once and for all Life of Gray must come here and present is reasoning for being portuguese-phobic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Institut d'études politiques de Paris (Sciences Po, Paris)Sciences Po – Per common name. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 05:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Rangoon11 (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Sounds like "bum" - just saying, not scientific, but my reason to prefer the present title. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Not in English.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree. WP:COMMON applies. "Sciences Po" is by far the most common name for this institute. --RJFF (talk) 11:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree. "Sciences Po" is the name by which the school goes (and wants to go), both nationally and internationally. It seems confusing to me to continue to call it by its obscure French administrative name "Institut d'Etudes politiques de Paris". No one uses that denomination, not even Sciences Po's faculty, students and administrative staff... SalimJah (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Christine Lagarde[edit]

Hello. I see Christine Lagarde as alumni of "Sciences Po" but in fact, she was gréaduated at "Sciences Po Aix-en-Provence", which is not "Sciences Po Paris". Correct please and sorry for my English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this is fixed now. SalimJah (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sciences Po/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Substituted at 21:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


"Sciences Po (French pronunciation: ​[sjɑ̃s po]), formerly Paris Institute of Political Studies"...

Is this supposed to read 'formally'?

(If yes, 'officially' probably reads better.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it's formerly, thanks.

--Launebee (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source that the name has been formally changed, as opposed to extensive use of the shorter brand? Mezigue (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
The question is more: is there a source saying that it is still one of his name? Don’t you think? --Launebee (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Er, no. To claim the change, you need a source. This is a public institution; its management may change the brand but it takes a government decree or something like that to change its actual name. Mezigue (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
The easiest is perhaps to write "or"? --Launebee (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality and citations[edit]

I deleted a lot of unencyclopedical content, but there is more to do so I put banners. --Launebee (talk) 09:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Launabee, I saw that you deleted the all information on admissions to Sciences Po and any description of its undergraduate degree-structure. This kind of information isn't superfluous or generally biased. How come you deleted it anyway? 2003:42:2E00:1DB3:C09:D546:69B8:84C7 (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. It's not encyclopedical content. --Launebee (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

That is incorrect. A standard Wikipedia article on a university will feature the "academic profile". This also includes information on admissions and offered degrees. Therefore, my question concerning your deletion. 2003:42:2E34:1105:8F8:10CD:6577:4006 (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Look, Launabee: Somehow you seem to hold a deep grudge against Sciences Po and HEC.. Of course it is completely legitimate to criticize these institutions in an argumentative manner. However, Wikipedia is not the place to carry out a personal vendetta against these institutions. Your critique focuses on these institutions, whilst you spare other universities such as École Polytechnique or Oxford or Harvard.. Also, at the same time you add positive sounding content to the article on Panthéon-Assas. This seems a bit like rival pettiness. I strongly ask you to reconsider your approach to editing and remind you of the purpose of Wikipedia as a source of unbiased knowledge. 2003:42:2E34:1158:78D3:DDA5:7E1A:D570 (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Concerning my last change to the article: Launabee, I have changed the wording of the passage on Sciences Po's status in French society and you have undone this. The reason that you give, is that citing specific reasons for Sciences Po's "positive" status in French society must be balanced by citing a similar number of reasons for critique. Firstly, that is incorrect and secondly the wording already did adequately reflect the points which critics bring forth against the university. Saying that the school is criticized for furthering elitism and technocracy says the same as quoting commentators who find that the School produces "incompetent" and "blinkered" alumni. The only difference is that by summarizing the points which critical voices make and putting them in descriptive language is in accordance with encyclopedic style of writing, while citing specific insulting commentators is not. I also ask you to respond to questions concerning your editing on this article, if you are going to continue editing. Kind regards 2003:42:2E66:436A:98D:9112:7EC7:E8BE (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. However, the reformulation has to be correlated to what the sources say. I reformulated without any quote, hope it's fine for you now.

Please don't do any personal attack against me, there is no vendetta here. I didn't say it has to be balanced but that's everything has to be dealt with the same way. I note by the way that your only edits are in this article with several IP addresses.

--Launebee (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing with different IP adresses. Thanks.

--Launebee (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

There was no personal attack intended, I was commenting on the circumstances of your editing. My apologies for any misunderstanding. The revision of your editing was corrective and not disruptive (please see my reasons below). The fact that I use different IP-addresses for editing has nothing to do with the level quality and validity of my individual editing-measures.

Presenting descriptive information, which relates to quantitatively measurable circumstances, such as acceptance rates and placement records is very different from rephrasing highly subjective and strongly insulting statements by individual commentators ("creating an oligarchy", "disconnected with reality", "blinkered, arrogant and frequently incompetent"). It is highly uncommon to present these kind of insulting statements as the ones you have chosen, within any encyclopedic article on a university. There are no reasonable grounds for this unusual and derogatory style of editing. Similar institutions from around the world face the same line of negative comments, but this is not seen as a sufficient reason for rephrasing insulting statements within encyclopedic articles. The only explanation which seems plausible is a personal dislike on the side of the editor. This however is not an adequate reason for this non-standard practice kind of editing. For these reasons I ask you to reedit the insulting statements you have added to the article. Kind regards. (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

No, not every big institution is said to produce incompetent people like Sciences Po is. But because it’s in the lede, we can reduce this sentence.

--Launebee (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Launebee! I see that you put banners at the top of the Sciences Po article indicating that some of the content was ad-like and some needed more references. Could you please be more specific as to which part(s) of the article you're referring to? That would be useful for the folks out there who may want to improve it. Thanks! :) SalimJah (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Launebee what is your problem with Sciences Po? Writing "creating an oligarchy", "disconnected with reality", "blinkered, arrogant and frequently incompetent" (do you write for Libération by the way?), and then placing banners at the top of the page (why? This article doesn't look like an advert at all. Look at some other wikis for unis and you will see for yourself). That's a bit rubbish. Not very encyclopedic of you. Anyway not to sound upset with you, but not sure what good running Sciences Po down on the world's encycolpedia is doing. That's all I have to say - Have a nice day :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Also, you're clearly not an alumn of Sciences Po -- why are you all over the wiki to the point where you're vandalizing it? Chill out and tell the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I deleted the banners Launebee added. I went and reviewed Launebee's 'contributions', and found she was lying about the citations she was using, while also vandalizing other people's work (see "Intro" section below). I therefore deleted the banners she put up, because we have evidence she is a dishonest editor, and from what I can judge, putting these banners up was also not founded in reality, like her other statement I highlight below. From reading comments above, it looks like she has deleted much other encyclopedic content because she goes to Paris II and hates Sciences Po and just wants to vandalize the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello all,

I took a few hours and made some changes to Sciences Po's intro section last week. I used the Yale and University of Chicago intros as my template for what to include and how to structure it. (e.g., why it was founded, when, and its influence in French society. Here is my hard work:

The Institute is composed of the Collège universitaire for undergraduate studies, six professional schools, research divisions in law, economics, history, political science, and sociology, and the doctoral school. The main Paris campus encircles Boulevard Saint-Germain in the 7th arrondissement, and five additional campuses are spread across France. Current enrollment is approximately 13,000 students.

Sciences Po is ranked 4th in the world for Politics and International Studies in 2016,["QS World University Rankings by Subject 2016 - Politics & International Studies". Top Universities. ] and its rankings in law, economics, and sociology were among the top in Europe.["QS World University Rankings by Subject 2016". Top Universities. ] Sciences Po is a member of several academic consortia (including APSIA and the College Board). Beyond its academics, Sciences Po is well known for its international outlook. Forty per cent of students are from outside France, every undergraduate is required to spend his or her third year abroad, and the Institute has a wide range of partnerships with some 410 universities around the world. The Institute also maintains a robust sport programme.

Founded in response to France's crisis after the Franco-Prussian War and the fall of the Second Empire, the goals of its founders were to train new elites and produce modern knowledge for a new France.["NOTRE HISTOIRE". Sciences Po. ] Since its founding, Sciences Po students and faculty have played a major role in the life and development of France, particularly in government. Sciences Po and its innovative curriculum would inspire and serve as the model for the London School of Economics.

Sciences Po has many prominent alumni. This includes five of the last six French presidents, 13 French prime ministers, 12 foreign heads of state or government, leaders of international organizations including the UN, IMF, and WTO, and roughly half of ENA’s cohort each year. CEOs from several of Europe's largest companies, and influential cultural figures have also studied there. Many of the faculty are also prominent in their fields, both as practitioners and/or academics.

Launebee went in and deleted all my USEFUL work, and changed it to this:

Sciences Po was founded in 1872 and its main campus is located rue Saint-Guillaume in the 7th arrondissement. It maintains now departments in political science, economics, history, sociology, law, finance, business, communication, social and urban policy, management, and journalism. It is a member of several academic consortia (inclding APSIA and the College Board) and have partnerships with 410 universities.

Sciences Po is ranked 4th in Politics and International Studies by QS 2016 World University Rankings.[2] Sciences Po has produced many notable alumni: five of the last six French presidents and approximately 23 Prime Ministers have studied or taught at Sciences Po, as well as heads of international organizations like the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund. It is seen in France as an elite institution[3][4][5] but is strongly criticised in France and abroad and faced numerous scandals.[6][7][8]

Launebee, you made many errors in your English grammar while you tried to ruin my hardwork that IMPROVED this wiki IN LINE WITH WIKIPEDIA'S STANDARDS. Also, your 'citations' after the phrase "faced numerous scandals" DO NOT MENTION ANY SCANDALS. You're just lying at this point. I'm removing your banners, because clearly you are a vandal. I suggest rather than waste time vandalizing Sciences Po's wiki, you spend that time improving your English. If you keep this up, I'm going to report you to the moderators and we will launch an investigation. Consider this your warning. I don't think there will be any problem having your privileges removed, considering all of the negative comments others have said about your modifications in the past, along with your most recent outburst detailed above.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I filed a dispute resolution request there for your personal attacks on me.

--Launebee (talk) 10:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your behaviour and your sexism: because you think I am a liar and I am dishonest, so I should be a woman?

The words "brilliant but blinkered, often arrogant and frequently incompetent ruling freemasonry" are in the newspaper article that was linked to in this article before I came, and I finally did not quote it entirely.

If your are not happy with the word scandal, just say it instead of insulting me. Le Monde has for example several articles on the "scandal of salary in Sciences Po" and MediaPart has a special page with all the articles about scandals in Science Po. It’s in the wiki article.

Please stop your disruptive editing and your insults.

--Launebee (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Note also that I added in the article the good ranking of Sciences Po by Eduniversal. Please focus more on the content of the article than in who hates or loves what.

--Launebee (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Launebee, could you please point out where any comments have been sexist? Calling someone sexist for NO REASON is way over the line. You are such a troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

You are the one who is the disruptive editor. You deleted a ton of my work again describing the degree structure. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not call you sexist, I wrote that you show sexism. I gave you the link to the dispute resolution page.

It is an encyclopedia here, not a advertisement page, a catalog or a place to insult people. You have to show respect toward the other editors, volunteers just like you.

--Launebee (talk) 08:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You said to "stop my...sexism". That's a pretty serious accusation. You say because I called you dishonest, I am showing sexism. How would I know whether you are female or male? You are just an angry person from all I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


All parties, please read WP:NOTVAND and WP:AGF. Comment on content, not the contributor. --NeilN talk to me 10:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Full protection[edit]

This article has been fully protected so that it can oly be edited by administrators. Contributors wishing to edit its content please follow the instructions at WP:Edit request. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 September 2016[edit]

In the lede:

1) a) Remove "Collège universitaire" mentionned twice in the lede. Sciences Po is not a university but tries to add "university" everywhere to have people think it is. This is only a misleading advertisement name with no informative value (on the contrary, it is misleading), so it has not its place in an encyclopedia.

b) Remove the mention of "encircles Boulevard Saint-Germain". It’s not at all in this street, not encircles it. Once again a tentative to artificially associate Sciences Po with "great" things.

The previous paragraph was better: "Its main campus is located rue Saint-Guillaume in the 7th arrondissement. It maintains departments in political science, economics, history, sociology, law, finance, business, communication, social and urban policy, management, and journalism.

2) a) "Sciences Po is ranked 4th in Politics and International Studies by QS 2016 World University Rankings." is more objective than "Sciences Po is ranked 4th in the world for Politics and International Studies in 2016", it’s not a absolute rank but one ranking.

b) Remove "its rankings in law, economics, and sociology were among the top in Europe.", argumentative, the source does not states that.

3) Remove "Founded in response to France's crisis after the Franco-Prussian War and the fall of the Second Empire, the goals of its founders were to train new elites and produce modern knowledge for a new France."NOTRE HISTOIRE". Sciences Po. ". Self‑praising from the School, not neutral and no independant source.

4) Isn’t the gallery too big?

5) Deletion of the first paragraph in History section, already explained in the relevant subsection.

Launebee (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Re:3. The grammar in this sentence is wrong. I fixed it on 9 September but was reverted with no explanation and now the article is blocked to non-admin users. On the other hand I disagree that there is a neutrality issue as these are the stated goals of the school rather than a claim that they were fulfilled. Mezigue (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Concerning Launabees' request Nr. 1) b): Sciences Po does have lecture halls directly on Boulevard Saint-Germain. Also, there are lecture halls on Rue de l'Université and on Rue Saint-Guillaume. Therefore, "encircles Boulevard Saint-Germain" is highly accurate and mustn't be changed. (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Concerning Launabees' request Nr. 1) a): Why is Sciences Po not a university? It has several very distinct faculties. It is a specialist institution and a grande établissement, but how does this disqualify Sciences Po for being a university? (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

1) a) Sciences Po is clearly not a university, sorry.

b) The main adress is on rue Saint-Guillaume, the others are secondary. --Launebee (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I am going to respond to Launabee's 5 points, the order she gave them, point-by-point:
1. Launabee is correct, Sciences Po is not a university. French universities must accept anyone with a Bac (high school diploma). Sciences Po is a grand école, which lets it select the students it wants, unlike a "university" in the French system. However, Sciences Po's undergraduate college is called the "Collège universitaire". So, "Collège universitaire" in this article refers to the undergraduate college. (Sciences Po has different schools - the professional schools (for master's programs) and the "Collège universitaire" for bachelors programs. Not very complicated.)
1b. Boulevard Saint-Germain: Here is a link to the campus map (Sciences Po buildings are in red):
So, the campus does in fact encircle the Boulevard Saint-Germain. Not sure how anyone could argue against that interpretation of the geography of Sciences Po's buildings when viewing the actual map.
Sciences Po used to be located only at 27 Rue Saint Guillaume. However, nowadays, less than half of any students' classes are taught there (it's different for different students - some have all of their classes there, some have none, but for most of us, the majority of our classes are somewhere else). Also, the administrative offices are at another building. Similarly, the law school, international affairs school, journalism school, communications school, and Doctoral School are all in other buildings. I would disagree the building on Saint Guillaume it is the "main" building. There really isn't a main building at Sciences Po, but this is the biggest building and many years ago was the only building.
I wrote the sentence that the "campus encircles Boulevard Saint Germain", not to be associated with something, but because it's the most accurate way of describing the campus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
2. Launabee deleted the phrase its rankings in law, economics, and sociology were among the top in Europe because this is "argumentative, the source does not states that."
I am going to address this comment in 2 parts:
(1) "The source does not say that": The Source is: From this Source, one can view all of the rankings for each of those fields (law, economics, and sociology) with one click. So the Source does provide rankings for these fields. If someone thinks its better to have three separate direct links from the same Source, rather that one reference to the page where all of the rankings can be found, feel free to change this and put in the direct links.
(2) Having established that the Source, QS Rankings by Subject, does provide these rankings, let's examine the statement that Sciences Po's 'rankings in law, economics, and sociology are among the top in Europe' is "argumentative": By viewing the rankings by subject, one can see the top 100 schools in the world in each subject. For Law, I count 13 European schools ranked in the top 50. The 51-100 range of schools are not individually ranked, but there are 19 European schools in the 51-100 range, including Sciences Po. From this, we can deduct that Sciences Po is ranked in the 14-32 range for Law out of all European schools (including the UK and Non-EU countries). Using the same method for Economics, we can deduct Sciences Po is in the 17-34 range for European schools. For Sociology, counting again only the European schools on the rankings, Sciences Po is #17.
Doing a quick google search, there are 4,000 higher education establishments in Europe. Of course, not all 4,000 teach economics, or law, etc., so let's estimate that only half of them teach each subject (this is an assumption I am making, feel free to say I am wrong if you have sources). A #12 ranking is in the top 1% from a pool of 2,000 higher education establishments, and any ranking in the 14-32 and 17-34 range would be in the top 1-2%.
The question is thus is a ranking in the top 1-2% "among the top"? I think the answer has to be yes.
3. History / "self praising":
(1) History: If you look at peer institutions of Sciences Po's wikipedia pages, you will find a sentence or 2 describing how and/or why the institution was founded. See: Free University of Berlin, University of California, Berkeley, the LSE, and Paris I (Sciences Po offers double degrees with all of these schools, which is why I used them, and why I think it is a fair comparison. I don't think it's advisable to compare the wikis of lesser-known universities, or universities in the developing world). Besides having 1-2 sentences describing their history/founding, these other universities also maintain lengthy sections for history in the article. So, mentioning the reasons for founding the place is totally in line with what other pages are doing.
Launabee, please explain why this is not the case, and why the Free University of Berlin, University of California, Berkeley, LSE, and Paris I's pages are also wrong and should also be changed if you still disagree.
(2) "Self praising": Sciences Po was founded exactly for the reason of training new elites in France. There is no dispute about that. Perhaps a third-party source can be found saying so. This would be better, although the original founding documents / minutes from the meeting would be best as the primary source if anyone can find them.
4. Gallery:
I created the gallery after looking at Dartmouth College's, which has 13 people. Sciences Po's has 15. Cambridge and Oxford both have many pictures in their alumni sections (though not in a gallery format).
I think having a gallery improves the visual appeal of the article. This could be debated.
5. See 3 above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Bonus: I see you made a section entirely for Scandals. Could you please provide a link to any other serious school's wiki that contains a "Scandals" section? The University of Cambridge had a spy ring recruiting people to infiltrate British intelligence and spy for the Soviet Union - pretty big scandal. It's not even mentioned on its wiki. Georgetown University owned slaves and sold them, Harvard has had massive cheating scandals - these get 1 sentence and are placed in the "History" and "Teaching" sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


Pictogram voting info.svg Administrator note: User:Launebee: Based on the comments above, please can you clarify which of your 7 proposed changes are supported by consensus? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


1. One, they don’t encircles it, second, the main adress in on rue Saint Guillaume.

2. For you, the top 800 would be top 2% and then said in the lede to be the top of Europe? It doesn’t make sense. Moreover, precision is a key in encyclopedia.

3. If you want to edit other pages, please do it. Here, the sentence in not neutral. And it doesn’t work like that: you have to find a neutral source to add a praise in the article, not the other way.

"Bonus" : no institution has so many scandals, and so extensively covered by the press, and so many lawsuits and official reports mentioning it, that’s why a section was needed here. But you are only active on this article, feel free to edit the other ones.

--Launebee (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed Launebee deleted my responses to her points above. I am only coming back to put them back. And no, I am not the same person as, despite what Launebee alleged.
1. One, they don’t encircles it, second, the main adress in on rue Saint Guillaume.
My Response: View the map: In English, "Encircle" means "surround." So saying the campus does not encircle Blvd Saint Germain is a lie.
2. For you, the top 800 would be top 2% and then said in the lede to be the top of Europe? It doesn’t make sense. Moreover, precision is a key in encyclopedia.
My Response: No, that's another lie. 800 / 2000 = 40%. So, 800 would be in the 40th percentile. 20 / 2,000 = 1%, 40 / 2000 = 2%. So, only the top 40 would be in the top 2%. It's basic maths.
3. If you want to edit other pages, please do it. Here, the sentence in not neutral. And it doesn’t work like that: you have to find a neutral source to add a praise in the article, not the other way.
"Bonus" : no institution has so many scandals, and so extensively covered by the press, and so many lawsuits and official reports mentioning it, that’s why a section was needed here. But you are only active on this article, feel free to edit the other ones.
My Response: Please provide evidence to support your claim that no other institution has had so many scandals.
Launebee, I don't think its constructive to bring your method of deleting anything you don't like also to the Talk page. No, this is not a personal attack against you. Just stop deleting everything you don't like.
-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd ask you quietly to remove your inferences of lying from your comment please. Assume good faith on the part of Launebee, if they are incorrect comment on that, don't presume an intention to deceive. I've also re-instated your comment. I won't change it -excluding an indent- as I prefer not to edit others comments except where absolutely necessary. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear MSGJ,

It seems none. Since IP user, who said he’s an alumni from Sciences Po, and is only active on this article, insists on putting advertisement in it. --Launebee (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Unanimity is not required; rough consensus will suffice. I have disabled the request for now, but feel free to reactivate for any of your proposals if they have broad support. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Response: I've written several things describing the information about admissions (standards and statistics), and listed the professional schools - I copied what other university's were doing on their wikis, and Launebee deleted this because it was "like an advertisement". If you look at the history of the article, this has been going on for a long time. I understand many people in France resent Sciences Po. I don't think they should come to wikipedia to try to ruin Sciences Po's reputation and re-write history.--

Moderators: Does it strike you as odd that half of the page is about "Scandals", provided by Launebee, and this same Launebee has deleted anything someone has written to try describing the school under the pretenses that this is "advertising", then offers lies in response and accuses those who disagree with them of sexism? And then also, this same person has written glowing things about Sciences Po's rival university, Paris II, basically writing the whole page? I'll let you ladies and gentlemen decide what's really going on here (of course, no one has gone on the Paris II wiki to do the same thing Launebee is doing here.)--

Conclusion: I will not be coming back to "debate". I've responded to that stuff above. Launebee can continue her campaign to run down Sciences Po on wikipedia while making Paris II seem like heaven. I will not be coming back to respond to anything whatsoever as I see I'm spending hours "debating" with a tro||. I would request that those banners at the top of the page be taken down, because they were put there by a tro|| for purposes of tro||ing.--

From this experience, I see that Wikipedia is, like it's own founders have said, run by tro||s. I'm finished forever with this website. Any logic gets ignored and lies are thrown back in your face when you try to improve something and people pushing an agenda want to delete it. If you call those people out, they accuse you of being sexist. This is a waste of my valuable time. Best regards.--

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

If anyone disagrees with my propositions, please say so.

--Launebee (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

If anyone agrees with Launebee's propositions, please say so.--

Again, I want to strongly express my opposition to Launabee's style of editing. Critical voices are absolutely necessary for producing accurate and informative content on Wikipedia, especially where editors may directly benefit from inaccurate and overly positive content (i.e. universities, companies, film-productions, etc.). However, Launabee has been going the opposite direction, by unreasonably bashing Science Po on Wikipedia, in a way which would be unacceptable for any article. To the editor with the IP-address Please do keep up your argumentative, rational and balanced work on the article. Kind regards, (talk) 10:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I reported the personal attacks there. Attacking me, even in a civil manner, rather to discuss actual content will lead to nothing for you. --Launebee (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The critique against the editing of Launabee has been based on specific deletions and insertions. I understand that edits must be criticized themselves and not the editor - however, where one user unreasonably and continuously undoes hard work of other users, it must be possible to give opposition.

1.) Concerning the proposed changes 1) - 5): I find the points which were laid out against these changes clear, concise and very convincing. Therefore, I also strongly oppose these changes.

2.) Furthermore, I think that it would greatly improve the article, if there were a section which lays out the degree structure at Sciences Po. Firstly, this kind of information can be found in almost all Wikipedia articles on universities - it is not unencyclopedical. Secondly, the degree-structure at Sciences Po is comparatively complex and distinct. Thus, this kind of information would help the reader to easily get a better understanding of how Sciences Po works.

3.) I also propose that the "Reputation and scandals" part should be integrated into the schools history, rather than being an individual sub-section. This would keep the article in line with the standard practice on Wikipedia articles on universities. (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The standard practice is to have a reputation section, and here, there are so many scandals that it should be there.

Note that everybody is hard working here.

--Launebee (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up on the edit war: what to do about this article now?[edit]

Having briefly reviewed the above exchanges between Launebee and the unregistered user, I must say that the latter's responses to Launebee's points sound very sensible to me. Focusing *only* on content here (since I strongly regret the personal tone that this conversation has taken), I think that much of the material which had been added by the unregistered user was actually useful, and could have been improved upon or moved to other sections of the article. Looking at the edit history, Launebee's way of editing this article did not strike me as very collaborative: massive deletion of the existing content, replaced by a negative tone and a strong focus on scandals right from the start. After all, every elite/elitist institution in the world has to face strong criticism (some of which is warranted), and I don't think that Launebee helped reach a neutral point of view through his relatively aggressive edits. I'm not saying that the scandals don't belong in the article. They do. Simply that the unregistered user's contributions did add something valuable, and I regret the fact that Launebee did not take them as an opportunity to reach a balance in his edits, which would have resulted in a significant improvement over the current write-up. So, do we really need to protect this article until March 2017? And Mr unregistered user, why don't you come back and register an actual account (it will take you a minute!) so that we could all have a productive conversation as to what needs to be done? SalimJah (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I reported here your comment about my "agressive edits".
Once again, again, it is false to say everyone has critics like Sciences Po does. If the section is so long, it’s because there are so many scandals, official reports and judicial sentences.
--Launebee (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on edit propositions[edit]

To the IP user:

1) No, it doesn’t.

2) It’s not a lie but a mistake. Top 80 considered as top doesn’t make sense neither.

3) I’m just kind by explaining you, this comparison is pointless.

--Launebee (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

For further reference in this discussion, please note that my future username is "MePhisto". I have made edits under the following IP addresses: ; 2003:42:2E00:1DB3:C09:D546:69B8:84C7 ; 2003:42:2E34:1105:8F8:10CD:6577:4006 ; 2003:42:2E34:1158:78D3:DDA5:7E1A:D570 ; 2003:42:2E66:436A:98D:9112:7EC7:E8BE ;

Concerning the definition of "to encircle": Looking at the campus map of Sciences Po and at the definitions provided by "The Free Dictionary and "Merriam Webster", I can't understand how anyone could assume that the campus does not "encircle" Boulevard Saint-Germain. To say that the campus "encircles" Boulevard Saint-Germain would only be incorrect, if to "encircle" would require a literal, full geometrical circle of campus buildings. This however is not how the word is commonly used. Perhaps a non-native speaker might get this wrong though (hope this isn't counted as a personal attack).

Concerning the degree structure of Sciences Po: I would recommend to add the content which the user with the IP address has added, but which was deleted by Launabee. MePhisto (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome, MePhisto! :) I tend to agree with you. Much of the content which was added by the unregistered user was actually useful. Some of it could certainly be reframed with a more neutral tone and/or moved to other specific sections of the article as opposed to being inserted directly in the intro (e.g., the ranking details), but it should not be ignored. That said, I also do think that Launebee's contributions on the Sciences Po scandals are useful too. Maybe a sentence about that would be enough in the intro, and we could move the rest to some dedicated section of the article. +1 if you want to start this off! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalimJah (talkcontribs) 13:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
As for encircle, third opinion is needed I think. It’s not the most important point.
And Wikipedia is not a catalog.
--Launebee (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I indented your above response for clarity, Launebee. We certainly agree with you that Wikipedia is not a catalog. And we can also find an alternative to describe the location of the campus accurately if you prefer. But focusing on substance here: would you be ready to forget about the irrelevant personal dispute and reconsider your position towards the contributions of the anonymous user, trying to (or, at least, letting other people) build upon them in order to improve the article? That would be laudable on your part! :) It would also benefit the article a lot: seriously, the content which he added was often informative and relevant, even though it could be edited. Cheers! SalimJah (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Your question is irrelevant, I never deleted any content because I have a dispute with the author on other things. --Launebee (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
1) a) Unlike most French universities, Sciences Po is a selective University (also known as a "Grande Ecole" in French) focused on the Social Sciences. I would therefore write: "Sciences Po (French pronunciation: ​[sjɑ̃s po]), also known as the Paris Institute of Political Studies (French: "Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris"), is a selective University (or "Grande École"[1] in French) focused on the Social Sciences."
1) b) The statement that the campus "encircles Boulevard Saint-Germain" is accurate and precise, given the fact that nowadays, teaching and research activities are equally conducted Rue Saint Guilllaume, Rue des Saints-Pères, Rue de L'Université and (soon) Place Saint Thomas d'Aquin. If you don't like the wording we would need to find something else that conveys the same meaning.
2) a) b) The arguments of IP user for ranking Sciences Po among the best European Universities are sourced and solid. I would write: "Sciences Po is consistently ranked among the best European Universities in the Social Sciences, especially in the field of Politics and International Studies, where it is ranked 4th in the world by the QS World University Rankings 2016." We can then put the details of the rankings in the corresponding sub-section.
3) The fact that Sciences Po was founded by Emile Boutmy in the aftermath of the French defeat in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 in order to train a new political and intellectual elite is undisputed. This says nothing about whether this goal was eventually achieved. It is useful to have a sentence about the reasons for the foundation of the school in the lede. Also interesting to know that it inspired the model of the London School of Economics. We can work on the wording so that the info is conveyed with a more neutral tone, but those are the facts.
4) The gallery does look nice, but I have no opinion as to whether it should be reduced or expanded. What's the usual consensus on such matters?
5) Which paragraph are you referring to?
6) Comment on the "Scandals" section: I support the inclusion by Launebee of a "scandals" section in the body of the article. The content is sourced, although the write-up could sometimes be more neutral. We need more of that for all University articles! The corresponding sentence in the lede is fine on principle. It could be rewritten with a more neutral tone, however. To be sure, any elite institution in the world has to face criticisms and scandals, at the very least because it tends to attract a lot of attention. I don't see why the Sciences Po case should be treated differently. Therefore, I would modify the sentence as follows: "Sciences Po is seen as an elite institution in France and abroad[5][6][7]. As such, it has been subject to strong criticisms, and also faced a number of scandals.[8][9][10]" SalimJah (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
1) a) Sorry but "Sciences Po is not a university" (p. 2), not at all.
b) Have you got a source for your "equally"?
2) It is simply not accurate, sourced nor precise.
3) It has to be neutrally worded. "The school was created in 1972 to improve the training available for public servants and politicians following a series of political catastrophes." (same source) is better.
6) No source, even the non French ones, says it is not seen as an elite institution abroad, in comparison to the universities for example, and the scandals are not linked to the status. No other university faces so regularly such structural scandals.
--Launebee (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Launebee, I am really sorry, but it appears that, in spite of all the sources and arguments that we provide, you simply refuse to recognize a number of facts which IP user, MePhisto and myself have been trying to bring to your attention. Could you please explain in which sense your positions reflect a consensus? Let me try one more time:
1) a) Doesn't Sciences Po correspond to this definition?
1) b) Those are the campus buildings. MePhisto provided the map. Why give priority to the Rue des Saints-Guillaume building? The economics department, for instance, is fully located Rue des Saints-Pères (see the bottom of this page), and the doctoral school is located on Boulevard Saint-Germain proper (see the bottom of this page).
2) Then it's on you to demonstrate that the rankings and calculations provided above by IP user are false. You did not do that so far. Simply saying "no this is wrong" is no argument.
3) I'm sincerely happy that you're eventually willing to grant us a little something, but your wording does not convey the significant change that Emile Boutmy intended with the foundation of this institution. Quote (my own translation): "There was a need to 'provide a new head to the people' (those are Emile Boutmy's words) and train a more open, more inventive political elite than the one which had led France to a catastrophy." (See here for the original source in French.) To my mind, the fact that Sciences Po inspired the model of the LSE is also informative from an institutional standpoint.
6) Your sentence is not clear. Did you mean to say that Sciences Po is not seen as an elite institution abroad? I'd put forward the dual degrees and exchange programs that Sciences Po maintains with many top universities in the US and elsewhere as evidence against that claim. I would also bring to your attention that all of the recent scandals that Sciences Po faced and which you sourced are due to its unique governance structure, which provides it with some leeway in terms of finances and management than traditional universities simply don't have. So scandals and status *do* go together. But if you don't like it, we can still have two separate sentences: "Sciences Po is seen as an elite institution in France and abroad[5][6][7] and, as such, has been subject to strong criticisms. Sciences Po also faced a number of scandals.[8][9][10]" SalimJah (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
It seems you have a basic misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. You have to provide source to put an information in an article, and not give your personal interpretation. Sincerely, it’s the first time I ever see here someone saying he wants the article to say its institution is the top in many fields, unless someone else proves the contrary. --Launebee (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)