Talk:Paris-Panthéon-Assas University/Archive 2

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


 * B1 - Referencing and Citations;
 * Lede - citations should not be pervasive in the lede, the lede summarizes the body of the article. That said, there are a heap of things said in the lede that are either not mentioned in the body, or, not cited in the body either.
 * Administration - entirely uncited.
 * Campuses;
 * The university has eighteen campuses in Paris and one in Melun. - Citation needed
 * The campus in Melun hosts local first-year students. It is located in the old town of Melun, on Saint-Étienne Island, among Roman and Gothic remains. The Institute of Law and Economics of Pantheon-Assas University is located there. - Citation needed
 * Admissions
 * All French universities are legally obliged to allow students to change universities and curriculums after the first semester of their first year. However, they are allowed to accept as few or many students as they like; Panthéon-Assas accepts only 3% of transfer requests. Admission to the second year of the university's master programs is selective as well, some of these programs admitting only 1.7% of applicants. - Citation needed
 * Libraries
 * and which is co-administered by Panthéon-Assas and Panthéon-Sorbonne. - Citation needed
 * Research - entirely uncited
 * Programs for excellence - entirely uncited
 * Alumni - entirely uncited
 * Presidents - entirely uncited
 * Citations themselves are a mess, most citations are just a link to an article and do not give the reader any information about the publisher, date, or author. The citations need a thorough cleaning.


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


 * B2 - Coverage and accuracy;
 * Panthéon-Assas University has always been ranked first in law in national rankings - WP:PEACOCK; This is clearly impossible to prove. It may be ranked first by Eduniversal and others, but, that ranking only applies to them. As stated above this would need to be recast and attribution provided. It is not a neutral statement. Take Harvard, known to be one of the best institutions in the world, nowhere on it's article does it describe itself as such without giving proper attribution to whom is declaring it. Despite this, it's also ranked anywhere between 1st and 6th in other sources and this is acknowledged within the article as well. Assas is much the same - Eduniversal puts it first, QS puts it third, LLM puts it second.
 * is commonly associated with "excellence" in Law - This is far too vague to be of any use. One source =/= common.
 * and is seen in France and abroad as "the top law school in France". - by whom? and more importantly not "the", never "the". One of the... sure, but, "the" no. Not a neutral statement.
 * Panthéon-Assas University has always been ranked first in law in national rankings - only Eduniversal rankings and this alone is not sufficient to make such a declarative statement. Not a neutral statement.
 * Assas graduates have by far the highest salary of all French law schools. - According to "capital.fr" Assas graduates have by far the highest salary of all French law schools. A single source should never be used to make a contentious declarative statement.
 * Assas is commonly seen as a university of "excellence" in Law and is often called in France and abroad "the top law school in France". - I noted all the citations, but, I feel relative safe in saying that each of those sources state this only for themselves. I.e. They state that it is "the top law school in France", but, do not state "is often called ... the top law school in France". As such, this statement only reflects a select group of sources and not necessarily the common statement across all sources.
 * Thanks for your point of view. In fact, the source clearly states that it is generally considered as the top law school of France without giving its own opinion: "son image prestigieuse de “première université juridique de France”" . I don’t think "prestigious should be in the article, because all schools can be prestigious, but the reputation of first law school is clearly stated. --Launebee (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Result = Fails B2 due to the fairly pervasive use of exaggerated or contentious labels that may well reflect the sources used within the article, but, cannot and do not reflect the views of all or most sources.
 * No, only the sources that you have selected say that. I have already provided ranking that says that this university compares poorly against other French universities. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)No, you did not. 2) It is off-topic. We are talking about reputation here, and since the source was in French, I just explained. --Launebee (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I did it on the French version of Wikipédia to your other puppet, and again on the English version. You are lying to an other contributor just to try to gain some time. It's relevant because it shows that you know that you are lying when you write this article. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * B3 - Structure
 * Result = Passes easily enough.


 * B4 - Grammar
 * Lede
 * Heir of the... - you mean successor. Buildings aren't heirs, they are successors.
 * Body
 * Panthéon-Assas was established so as to take over from the... - Not a well written sentence with run-ons to boot. Perhaps; Panthéon-Assas was established in 1970 to take over the faculty of law and economics from its predecessor, the University of Paris (Sorbonne Univesity) which itself was founded in the middle of the twelfth century and ceased to exist on December 31st, 1970 as a result of the student protests of 1969.
 * Clinging to the cultural legacy of the University of Paris, and considering that their faculty already gathered professors from other disciplines (political economics and political science) than their own, most of the law professors of the faculty of law and economics wished only to restructure their faculty into a university, so they founded the "University of law, economics and social sciences of Paris" or "Paris II". - Another poorly written sentence which I actually can't even follow.
 * and in 1998 to "Panthéon-Assas" only, in reference to the - run on. And in 1998 to "Panthéon-Assas" only. This is a reference to the...
 * The president of Panthéon-Assas is elected by members of the administration council, for a four-year tenure - remove the comma.
 * in 1969 serving as - in 1969, and serves as...
 * two dozens of research centres - two dozen research centres...
 * are located in the structure - a structure, not the.
 * It is registered among - it is registered as a...
 * second-year to four-year law students - fourth year.
 * with 1,700 seats; - a period (.) would be more appropriate.
 * Assas building has been redesigned last ten years and now hosts a learning center. - has it been redesigned in the past ten years, or over the period of the last ten years.


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


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

Overall; The article needs serious work to clean up the writing, fix up the citations, and remove insufficiently sourced non-neutral statements. This is definitely not an article I would pass at the B-class level. This is my opinion only, nor am I expecting anybody to undertake this as their project. I just want to explain/demonstrate where and how this article is lacking. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As of today, nothing has been done to fix the issues. The conclusion is still fully relevant.XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The review was followed by a change and is not relevant anymore. --Launebee (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)--Launebee (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Never confuse movement with action.
 * Some dust was removed, but as of today, nothing has been done to fix the issues. The conclusion is still fully relevant. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Mr rnddude]], could you tell us if you think there still is a neutrality issue on this article. For understanding of sources, this one states that PA has an "image prestigieuse de “première université juridique de France”" ("prestigious reputation of top law school of France"). Thanks! --Launebee (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You made an error with the ping template, but, I have this article on my watchlist so found it anyway. L'Etudiant doesn't state that PA has a "prestigious reputation of top law school of France" it says that PA "cultivates its prestigious image as the "top law school in France"". In fact, L'Etudiant was quoting the front page of PA's website which says; {{tq|Premiere universite juridique de France}}. There is a big difference between having that image and cultivating it. What L'Etudiant does say, however, is that PA is "renowned for excellence in Law"; {{tq|Réputée pour son excellence en droit}}. On the question of neutrality, yes it still has problems. Example; {{tq|... and is generally considered to be "the top law school in France"}}. Like I said, this isn't what L'Etudiant says. A more accurate portrayal of the source would be {{tq|... and cultivates it's own image of being "the top law school in France"}}. I think I said somewhere in my review that one source =/= a common view. I skimmed over my review and looked at the article in comparison. Most of my review still stands. The sources sections is much cleaner, but, the citations are still something of a mess. Large paragraphs still have no citation; e.g. Administration and Presidents. There are numerous grammatical problems that still exist. There have been some improvements though. What I did miss was the 16 revert (8 each) edit-war between you and {{u|XIIIfromTOKYO}} on April 30th, 2017 over this edit. From what I can tell, the edit war was over the phrase {{tq|... and is generally considered as "the top law school in France"}} and the removal of the maintenance tags for "advert", "refimprove" and "close paraphrasing". The rest of the edit seemed fine to me? Numerous sources added and some non-controversial material about PA's history. Is there anything else in the edit that you find controversial XIIIfromTOKYO. If there's a large edit and you contest a small portion of it only, then it's best to remove only the part that you find problematic and leave the rest in as a constructive contribution to the article. I'll probably come back to this sometime later, I have other things to attend to in the meantime. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Mr rnddude}} I have already tried {{tq|to remove only the part that you find problematic}}, but it is impossible with this contributor.
 * I have also tried to bring more contributors, but even admins have fleed. What should I do next ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 06:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Mr rnddude}} Thanks. Is it better now? --Launebee (talk) 09:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Mr rnddude}}, Launebee has once again tried to remove the warning template. S/he says that it was beacause s/he was Following Mr rnddude remarks. Do you agree on that kind of beheaviour ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm considering trying to help this article out. It's not a topic of interest and I don't know anything about French educational institutions, but, I figure if we can bring to this article to an amiable quality (genuine B-class) that might end this dispute. I'm going to do a copy-edit of the whole article. I'll leave comments possibly both today and tomorrow. I was hoping to start work on either Lycurgus of Sparta or Djoser today, but, I'll postpone that for a few days if I have to. On the topic of Launebee's question; Yes, the change makes the article more neutral now. Whether the article is now NPOV I don't know as I haven't gone through the whole article. I also don't know that it was wise to remove the templates. Specifically, even if that addresses NPOV it doesn't touch on advert or refimprove. On the topic of XIIIfromTOKYO's question; I am aware that Launebee removed the maintenance templates from the article in their most recent edit. You've re-instated the templates. Can we leave the templates alone (in the article) for about a week or until all three of us are completely satisfied that they are no longer necessary. I also considered posting at Dispute resolution noticeboard as I don't actively participate in this area. If by the end of the week (Sunday, 14th May 2017 at 12:00 UTC - 2pm in France I think and 10pm AEST for me) we've made no or limited progress and are still having the same problems I'm going to leave a post at DRN. I'm also going to outline a proposal for dealing with controversial changes. 1. Be bold and make your contribution. 2. If it's undone (that is found controversial), bring the proposed change to the article talk and we'll discuss. 3. Do not reinstate the change until we have a consensus on what to do with it. If the consensus is to re-instate do so, if not, leave it out. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, your help would be greatly appreciated indeed! Launebee (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Mr rnddude}} As you can see, "Thanks a lot" mean "I don't care, I will remove the templates no matter what you say". I have had to face that beahaviour for months. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is very annoying that everything I do is turned into personal attacks by XIII. {{ping|Mr rnddude}} Do you think that even after your edits, one template is not sufficient? --Launebee (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring
, Please stop removing sourced content. If you have arguments to disagree on sourced content that has been here for months, please talk first (without personal attacks like "you are lying") and then we get a consensus on your proposed changes. --Launebee (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am only following the rules. No Consensus has been reach, so the materials have to be removed from the article. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No Consensus has been reach on your changes, so please follow the rules. Launebee (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Give the links proving what you say. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A link proving that you are deleting sources without consensus? Launebee (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * """The article needs serious work to clean up the writing, fix up the citations, and remove insufficiently sourced non-neutral statements.""".
 * You have had 5 months to fix it. You didn't . So I remove anything that fall under the ""insufficiently sourced non-neutral statements"". XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You are precisely deleting the sources. --Launebee (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm deleting ""insufficiently sourced non-neutral statements"".
 * Sources and neutrality are 2 differents things. I have also given dozens of sources showing that antisemitism, racism, and many other criminal activities in Assas have been a commun sight for decades. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen you saying that because it was sourced, it had to be on the article. I haven't used legal threat to put it on the article either. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) It is false. 2) You cannot answer so you are personally attacking me. 3) You quote is about an old version, not about this one. --Launebee (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific ? It should be a good start to give the quotes and diffs of anything that you think is "false", or an "personnal attack". It's getting very difficult to understand what you mean.
 * Again, I have also given dozens of references showing that antisemitism, racism, and many other criminal activities in Assas have been a commun sight for decades. There are references (lots of them), so do you agree to put them in the article ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * PA has been sometimes the VICTIM of antisemitism because of its strong Jewish community. Once again, if a synaguogue receives swastikas, we wouldn’t summarize "antisemitism in this synaguogue"! PA has "porté plainte" (declared itself as victim to the public prosecutor for charges to be brought) because of this swastica put by one student (not at all common sight). Launebee (talk) 09:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So now there is a strong Jewish community in this college. Do you have a reference to back that claim, or is that from your personnal experience or préjugés ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is off-topic anyway, but you can see the Facebook page of Union des Étudiants Juifs de France Assas has a lot more likes and followers than UNEF Assas (twice less)(UNEF being historically the first student union of France) or UNI Assas (10 times less) (UNI being the first right-wing student union). --Launebee (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So you don't have any solid reference to back your claim.
 * I have provided solid references that say that antisemitism, among other misbeheviour, has been a common sight on the campus for decades. I don't see any reason why it should be kept away from the article. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not, you only provided reference of the fact that Panthéon-Assas has been the victim of a swastika marking, and it is certainly not the only university with shamefull tags on its walls. --Launebee (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * victim is your opinion only. Nothing like that that is said in the references. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The references say that PA has "porté plainte", so, legally, PA is called a "victim". --Launebee (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * On touche le fond.
 * Bon, je vais t'aider pour tes prochains partiels. Un dépôt de plainte n'est que le début de la procédure. Non seulement il ne présage pas du résultat final, mais en plus il peut tout à fait aboutir à un classement sans suite.
 * Tu n'as sans doute pas été assez attentif lors de ta capacité en droit, mais une fr:plainte et une fr:Plainte avec constitution de partie civile en France sont deux choses différentes.
 * Tu es bien conscient que tout es public, et que n'importe qui peut poster ça sur Twitter, avec ton exploit sur Eduniversal et Science-Po (avec tout le basard médiatique à prévoir vu certaines expressions utilisées en PDD ) ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is the second time this user is threatening me by saying the press might be contacted etc. Not that I am afraid of this, but isn’t it contrary to Wikipedia policies? --Launebee (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Needless to say that not a word of what Launebee says is true.
 * A new attempt to bring the discussion away from the main points. No serious reference has been provided. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I made an ANI request. --Launebee (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Real rankings are pretty bad.

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

You are confusing ranking and reputation.

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

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


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


 * So on and so on. Eduniversal rankings do not appear to be disreputable. Not from what I've found at least. That said, selectively listing only a single source which puts PA in the best possible light is by definition not neutral and therefore inappropriate. I'd like at least QS (3rd) and Eduniversal (1st) to be cited for national rankings in Law. I'd also like some comparison to world rankings; that is 101-150th according to QS for Law. I haven't found any other world wide rankings for PA in Law unfortunately.
 * On the topic of Eduniversal, they list PA as 27th in France.
 * It appear Meilleurs-Licenses is a subsidiary of Eduniversal. They are the one's who list PA as the best in France in Law.
 * Btw Masterbooking.fr is a subsidiary of Eduniversal. From what I gather, the problem with masterbooking.fr is that they are charging students (or potential students) for their applications or their services in a way that the Universities in question are completely unaware about? I read the whole article in translation, but, it wasn't very insightful to me.


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

--Launebee (talk) 09:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As you can find in the PA article, QS rankings are based on English speaking publications.
 * The Eduniversal ranking you are refering to are in business, not in Law. "Licence" means "bachelor". The meilleures licences websites ranks bachelor degree, meilleurs masters masters’s degree, and the global site Eduniversal business schools (not law school)
 * The French websites rankings are very specific rankings, not overall rankings of universities. One is on job finding, but numbers are approximative, and PA has 97% of findings, so not noticable at all. The other one is diffulty to exams (proportions of pass in three years), so it is the same. These are not global rankings at all.
 * QS rankings and other rankings companies have also paid activities, some raised questions in France. But it has no relationship with the rankings.
 * Ah, I had missed that the QS rankings had been included already. Sorry, I had been looking at the lede with the Eduniversal ranking only. Rankings don't have to be global/overall only. You can have overall rankings and more specific rankings together in a larger section. I haven't written on any university or college article before so I've been trying to compare with University articles I actually know something about. Normally you'd but the global rankings first and then go into details if you want to. That's really just an article development question which I defer to those interested in expanding the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorbonne Law School
XIIIfromTOKYO is repetitively deleting all reference to the name "Sorbonne Law School", saying it is an advertisement, even though you have sources with the Financial Times, the Chicago Tribune, Vocativ, US News either calling it "Sorbonne Law School", or explicitely saying PA is "the Law School in the Sorbonne". What to do? --Launebee (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have already clearly explained the point when I removed tyour mistake.
 * The École de droit de la Sorbonne is not the name of the university. It is the name of one of the departement of the university.
 * You have only provided very poor references so far. None of them come from a media with at least a minimum knowledge of the subject.
 * Still, you have provided a source showing that the university has been the craddle of "Holocaust-denying, Vichy-celebrating" groups for decades. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at all the "cradle" of it. It is an article about Le Pen, saying by the way that she went to the Sorbonne Law School. Like Christiane Taubira and a lot of left-wing politician. About "media with at least a minimum knowledge of the subject", so Wikipedia should contain your point of view over the Financial Times, The Chicago Tribune, and three other major news agencies? --Launebee (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The only references that you can find come from journalists who have never been to France, and have no particular knowledge on the topic. Obviously not reliable sources. Clear and simple. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * They "have never been in France" is really your argument for saying that The Financial Times is not serious about French universities? --Launebee (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Findings and attempted research
I've spent the past couple of days searching online for good sources for this article. PA is most notable in France, not particularly notable in an English speaking countries. This means in my searching that I've found fewer English sources than French. In this case specifically, aside from press releases (which I personally don't use for non-news articles at all) I haven't found anything useful to help me fix up the article. I've looked at the sources currently in the article, I'm of the opinion that the French sources are of a much better quality than the English ones. I've never heard of U.S. News before. The sources that I can look at are used improperly. For examples; I haven't been able to look at some sources like the Financial Times which requires a paid subscription. I don't speak French and can't translate google books pages without significant effort to rewrite entire pages first. Luckily, sources that are on news webpages I can get Mozilla Firefox to automatically translate the entire page for me. So I don't have to do so manually. In short, it would take a lot of effort for me to go through this entire article and actually fix it. Far more than I am willing to expend on this topic. What I can do is the basic copy-editing for grammar, spelling and punctuation that I have already done to parts of the article. I will endeavour to complete this copy-edit for the whole article. I've done about half of the article at this moment. This effort is being hampered by the edit-warring over content that continues at a slow pace. So instead I'm going to drive my focus to one specific thing; this material which has been the focus of the edit war for the last while. I can't remember if this dates back to the 2016 edit-wars, but, it's what is at stake right now. I'm going to go piece by piece into the material being added and removed in this edit and make a recommendation for each individual sentence.
 * 1. Assas’ international Law School, Sorbonne-Assas International Law School, is the 25th most popular in the world (1st of France) on LLM Guide cited to LLM. That's only half accurate Sorbonne-Assas is the 18th most popular in the world and first in France. That's not really the issue though. Sorbonne-Assas is not Pantheon-Assas (according to LLM), which is ranked 78th in the world and 5th in France on the same article. Indeed, I think Sorbonne-Assas is a reference to Paris I and not Paris II. Furthermore this popularity ranking is based on A ranking of the most popular Worldwide LLM listings in our directory based on unique profile views. This is a dubious at best way to measure popularity.
 * 2. On top of its official name, the university is referred to as "Assas" or "Paris II" cited to this article by "voanews". Mentions of Assas in the article = 0. Mentions of Paris II in the article = 1. Mentions of Pantheon-Assas in the article = 0. Yet somehow this source demonstrates that Pantheon-Assas is also referred to as Assas and Paris II. I understand what the point of this was, it was to link to a source that does call it by an alternative name. I don't know how the French encyclopaedia works, but, the English on has a very strict no original research policy.
 * or "Sorbonne Law School" ). Like I've said, I can't read the Financial Times article as it is hidden behind a paywall. So I have to neglect to pass any comment on this sentence specifically. (I have more to say about this on the second to last point)
 * Heir of the faculty of law and economics of the University of Paris (La Sorbonne),. I can support inclusion of this. I can confirm the veracity of the statement that Pantheon-Assas is l'Université Panthéon-Assas est l'héritière de l'ancienne Faculté de droit et de sciences économiques de Paris, composante de la Sorbonne, installée au cœur du quartier latin depuis le XIIIème siècle or in English the Panthéon-Assas University is the heir of the former Faculty of Law and Economics of Paris, part of the Sorbonne, located in the heart of the Latin Quarter since the 13th century. I can also state that University of Paris and Sorbonne are being used interchangeably within the source. I suspect the reason for this is that Sorbonne is the law school at University of Paris. XIIIfromTOKYO, I think you're getting a bit confused on this point. PA is the only heir of the faculty of law. Paris II inherited Law, Paris IV inherited humanities, Paris V inherited medicine etc, etc. Pantheon-Sorbonne (Paris I) is multidisciplinary and while an inheritor of University of Paris, was not built by a single discipline.
 * Panthéon-Assas University is ranked first in law by Eduniversal Support inclusion, but, not in the lede of the article. If you're going to do rankings, they need to be updated every year. Eduniversal has ranked Pantheon-Assas first in Law in France for the period 2016-17. By the way, change that sentence to is is ranked first in law in France by Eduniversal. Leaving it as first in law implies in the world. The rankings should only be mentioned in the section entitled rankings. This sentence should replace this one; Panthéon-Assas University has always been ranked first in law in Eduniversal rankings. I checked each year and in 2011-2012 PA was ranked third behind Pantheon-Sorbonne and Paris Dauphine. So no, not always.
 * and is renowned for excellence in Law." Accurate to the cited source. Can be included in the lede, but, this should be done with care and thought as to where in the lede this belongs. Third paragraph is a good place to do it with the discussion about who the alumni of the university are.
 * and "Sorbonne Law School". Citations 1 and 5 are both to FT. Citation 6 states law school at the Sorbonne. Citation 7 states Among them is Frederic Chatillon — a Hitler admirer and old friend of Le Pen’s from her Sorbonne law school days — who was banned per judicial order from having commercial ties with the National Front. In this case, citation 7 is inconsequential and should be removed. It's overlinking and doesn't actually go anywhere to suggest that Sorbonne Law School is PA. You'd have to know that Marine Le Pen was a student at PA to make the connection that Sorbonne Law School is in fact PA. I do have one problem with this whole Sorbonne Law School thing. While Sorbonne Law School does refer to PA it also refers to Pantheon-Sorbonne University (Paris I) and also Paris Law Faculty which is the predecessor of PA.
 * ... but Jean Chambaz, president of Paris-Sorbonne University, "bet" that Panthéon-Assas will follow the merge by 2021. Does not appear to be in the cited source. Jean Chambaz stated that PA chose to step aside from the merger for fear of losing their identity. I didn't notice anything about a merge in the future. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Sincerely thanks a lot for your work. Just few comments.
 * 1. Sorbonne-Assas is linked to PA, and has no link with Panthéon-Sorbonne, you can see their logo I agree LLM guide is not general, but only linked to itself.
 * 2. You have here the FT articles: Indeed, Panthéon-Sorbonne created in 2009 a law school with this name, but the Sorbonne Law School is primirily PA university, and it is called as such in different sources anyway.
 * 3. PA has always been first in law in France in Eduniversal rankings. If you look at your ehample (2011-12), the two first in the ranking are "Law and Management" ("Droit et gestion") bachelor degrees, Panthéon-Sorbonne is fifth of the ranking in pure Law. Since 2013-14, they separate Law and Law and Management (like Law and English was already separated), which makes things clearer.
 * 4. Chambaz says about their current refusal to be part of the merge: "Je fais le pari que dans quatre ans, leurs réticences seront levées."
 * Hope these comments help.
 * --Launebee (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. Good, we agree that "Sorbonne-Assas" (or "Sorbonne-Assas international law school") is not the university itself, but just a school. So clearly saying that PA is "Sorbonne law school" is an obvious mistake and must be removed.
 * 2. See 1/ the school and the university are 2 different bodies. Poor references must be removed.
 * 3. Eduniversival... lol. "false advertising" was the expression used by fr:Jean-Loup Salzmann, the head director of the French University network, and embarrassing was the word used by many other University presidents. Even the ministry of higher education was mulling a legal approach about that company.
 * 4. So, nothing serious. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 1.2. Not at all what I have said. Sorbonne-Assas international law school is a different entity created by PA, which is the Sorbonne Law School (not the international one). The FT is very clear about.
 * 3. It is false and you know it, they are talking about another activity of the company which own Eduniversal, and it is only opinions with obviously no legal claim. I already explained it to you above "rankings", and in Eduniversal talk page. All major French newspaper and some international ones have confidence in this company and this ranking, as already said.
 * --Launebee (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Given the number of different threads and comments to deal with I'll try to be quick here. Launebee, on your first point, Sorbonne Law School is a disambig page which links to PA and Pantheon-Sorbonne. Indeed the Pantheon-Sorbonne University article has several references to Sorbonne Law School being part of their faculty. I don't know why that is because no citation is provided, I just noticed that its written into the article. On your second point, thanks for the links. On your third point, fair enough I had wondered why Pantheon-Sorbonne was listed twice. Though in this case, that would mean PS is first in Law and Management and third in Law with PA being first in just law. On your fourth, thanks for the quote and while it's nothing special, it's fair enough if you want to include it as sourced material. I don't mind either way. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * On point 1, "Sorbonne Law School" is originally the Paris Law Faculty, then it became Panthéon-Assas, and the PS created a different law school which it called that way in 2009, but we are talking about different entities. I see that they even created a "Sorbonne Law School" in English recently, which is the name of a master degree. But hese are other entities that they called this way.
 * On point 3, you are totally right. PA has no Law and Management bachelor degree, it is why it is not in this ranking. You can see that Law, and Law and English rankings are listed apart in the rankings section.
 * On point 4, thanks.
 * --Launebee (talk) 10:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

As anyone can see hasn't reached an agreement on any text, nor has s/he even proposed one. Pretending to be "Following Mr rnddude remarks", S:he just reverted back. There is no concensus on any text, as nothing as ever been proposed on the talk page. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You haven’t reached any agreement to remove sourced content which has been here for a long time, and supports, at least partially, the inclusion (Mr rnddude, tell me if I am wrong). --Launebee (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I did say I support part of the edit in dispute. 1. I agreed with removing the LLM paragraph as potentially dubious. 2. I had no issue with including the Jean Chambaz quote with regards a merge in four years. 3. As far as I can tell, PA is the heir to the faculty of Law of the University of Paris. Indeed, that's what the cited source says. That said, I would still like to work out what to do with "Sorbonne Law School" – I mentioned above the ambiguity, and haven't worked out how to deal with it – and I don't think university rankings belong in the lede of the article. I have not seen this approach taken with more quality articles like Harvard University. It does appear in the lede in some University articles such as University of New South Wales. That's it I think. I got the message about leaving a comment at AN/I. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

A new flock of IP reverting me
So, for months on the French and the English Wikipédia, we had to face a flock of newly created accout, whose only was to revert contributors. It seems that a news strategy is at work, as IPs are now swarming the article. For today only :
 * 129.102.254.237 reverting me to hide the warning templates
 * 89.185.246.17 reverting me to hide the warning templates
 * 89.185.246.13 reverting me to hide the warning templates
 * 89.185.246.34 reverting me to hide the warning templates

Funny isn't it ?XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The article has been protected. Sad to see that a criminal is using such a method to harrass an other contributors. Sad and disgusting. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources to be added
has pointed out there are still sections that need sources and I have suggested that they provide those here.

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

Controversies?
added nearly 15 references to the Sciences Po article about "scandals" related to that college (more than half of the references), so as to describe it as "strongly criticised in France and abroad and faced numerous scandals." in the lead. Neutrality explains that articles should be written "without editorial bias". So let's see what can be found about this university, and so, what should be written in the lead if it had to be written like Science Po's. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you to start this thread with a personal attack on me. If you have a change to propose about SP, please tell us there. You statement is irrelevant here. --Launebee (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you stop saying that I'm a criminal who is breaking the rules ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I was merely explaining to you that your point was not relevant here. --Launebee (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

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

I have noticed that has written the lead section of Sciences Po so as to mention any controversies. So I assume that he or she will agree to mention in the lead the racist and antisemitic reputation of this university. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

EDIT : and of course, Le Monde, Libération, and Le Parisien are serious newspapers, nothing like Eduniversal. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * refuses to talk about this part, and even claims that it concerns only "the 1970's (...)a few years with only a few students".
 * So to put it clearly, there is an an article about the Groupe Union Défense, so it's a bit famous.
 * But let's check an other article, by Le Figaro this time, and published in 2012 (an other well known newspaper) :
 * "les militants [de l'UDJF] se battaient fréquemment avec ceux du GUD dans les années 1980-1990" : UDJF activists and GUD members frequently clashed during the 1980's and the 1990's.
 * "Des bastons très violentes entre gudards et antifascistes dont certains ont eu des côtes cassées se sont déroulés près de l'université. Et deux cars de police ont été récemment postés devant la fac" : violent brawls between GUD members and antifascists near the university, some of them had ribs and noses broken. Two police vans had to be permanently dispatched in front of the campus. This part is about recent events, and the article goes on, gibing explanations about how these GUD members enroll in this "prestigious" university. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

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

--Launebee (talk) 09:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Why are you refering to jew students as "foreigners" ? World War II is over, and you can still be French and jew. You should start to really carefully care about the words you use.
 * Well, for the rest of your comment, that's only your opinion. And of course it should be kept out of the article (and come on, cops in Front of every universities in Paris because of brawls ?)
 * I gave you references from well know newspapers (Le Figaro, Le Monde, Libération, and Le Parisien), I gave you the quotes, and their translations. There is a part about it on the French article. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I did not write that at all, what you are writing is absolutely outrageous!
 * You cannot give references about one topic and invent anything you like about this topic. These newspapers are not saying that at all, simply because it is false, no court has ever said such despicable things exist in PA, and then it is libelous. Beating up people is a crime, letting that done inside an institution is a crime, having a tradition of racism and antisemitism is a crime, saying that someone has this reputation without any actual evidence is a crime. You cannot tell such things if it is not true. Any journalist who would have made such libelous statement would be prosecuted, and even if it was done, copying libelous statements from any source is in itself a crime.
 * You are now making libelous statements against PA and me. You seriously have to stop!
 * --Launebee (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You have used to word "foreigners" to described thoses students, victims of racism and antisemitism. This kind of speech in France is deeply connected to far-right movements, and is considered as hate-speech. You say that you know a lot of things about France, so that's definitely something that you can't ignore. You are responsible for what you say.
 * I have given references from well know newspapers, I have quoted them, and I have translated these quotes. I have even shown that this topic is tackled on the French article. Your denial won't lead you anywhere. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I clearly did not describe Jews as foreigners. Your attack is absolutely despicable. --Launebee (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

As there is no valid opposition, this shall be added to the Lead, just like the scandals are mention in the Sciences Po lead. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Illegal activities in SP have been pointed out by official state agencies and by courts. What you want to put in here is only libel. --Launebee (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Still nothing relevant to say about these references ? Good. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)



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


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

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



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

Not at all the deed of Panthéon-Assas

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

Unfair competition


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

Global answer
Except those on the private school, none of these articles are related to the deeds of PA as an institution. In every academic institution, some students are doing things. For instance, in Harvard, blacks deans portraits have been crossed, but it is not Harvard as an institution at all. However, in Stanford, there has been concerns about the board attitude toward sexual assault: there, it is the institution (but even here, you could not repeat this as a fact until it proven in court). For SP, all of the scandals deal with SP as an institution, with judicicial sentences and state agency's report. For PA, I don't see how the managerial instances are anyhow involved in, for example in your claim of sexism, the fact one of its first year student created and then deleted a private-owned website (all your links deal with this event). Nobody is even accusing PA of any wrongdoing in your links. About racism, these articles do not support your original claims. About the private school, it is this time not libelous, but it is a very specific topic (is a law school allowed to create its own preparatory school) and not a controversy. --Launebee (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The title is clearly a legal threat, and you have been warned against that. told you less than a week ago that "Danger, we've entered NLT territory". You refused to remove your comment, and you said what you simply started a "discussion as to whether material is libelous (is not a legal threat)".
 * Today you don't even try to start a discussion about that, that is say using Arguments to proove your statement.
 * That's clearly an intimidation attempt. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No it's not, and I don't think Hasteur entered the AN/I thread with a sufficient level of understanding of the discussion. Discussing or declaring something to be libelous is not in itself a legal threat. Not a legal threat; "This is libelous". A legal threat; "This is libelous and I'm going to sue" or "This is libelous and I'll be contacting my attorneys about this" or anything to that effect. Anything that has the express intention of legal intimidation, which I'm not reading anywhere in the above, is a legal threat. That said, I'm going to ask you to refrain from declaring anything as being libelous or defamatory as it is not unreasonable for an editor to perceive it as such. Per NLT; if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous," that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue, even if that is not your intention. It's a "trigger" word that leaves people uneasy. Understandably so since usually these terms are generally used in the context of lawsuits. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean. In the same time, isn’t it important for him to know that what he is writing is seriously wrong, to the extent that he has to stop and the admins have to delete history? Yes, it is legally wrong, but it is also morally wrong to freely drag one’s reputation in the mire.
 * What he is trying to do is to say, there are newspapers talking in the same time of PA and Jews, so let’s say that this university has a tradition of having its Jews beaten up! And, by the way, this user is not happy with that, so let’s say he’s saying Jews are foreigners! He just 'can’t', because it is morally wrong. Don’t you think?
 * --Launebee (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Doubling down on statements that editors have suggested could get you into trouble only demonstrates that you don't understand the point of NLT. Do not, under any circumstances, use language that suggests or implies that you are going to use legal action to get your point of view.   Your repeated pirouetting about the definitions of the terms does not remove the chilling effect that your words and phrases have imparted to this page and to the ANI discussion. Next time you claim that you claim "libel" I will suggest that your repeated doubling down on your statements regarding the content have risen sufficiently to the point that administrative revocation of your ability to edit this encyclopedia should be enacted. I say again (along with Mr rnddude) knock off any claims of libel.  There are other ways to express opposition to sources or claims such as I do not think X is right because Y,R,M, and Z which invites a consensus discussion instead of wielding implied legal threats. Hasteur (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * While I understand MrNudule point, I don’t understand yours. Once again, "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat." --Launebee (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Controversies over the decades.
It's weird that this article, unlike Sciences Po's, doesn't have a "controversy" section. For decades, many newspapers, radios, and Tvs have published articles about problems women and/or minorities have to face there. Silencing theses issue clearly goes against NPOV. It needs to be addressed. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Translation help needed
Could someone uninvolved who speaks French please evaluate the section above and tell us whether the sources claim what the person posting them says they claim? A question about this has been posted at Help desk Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 13:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am neither an admin nor involved. French is probably my third language. I skimmed all the above citations.
 * All the allegations are historical: 2007-2016.
 * The far-right allegations relate to a group, who claimed to be students, called Assas Patriote, and who claimed to be successors to Groupe Union Défense (GUD). Their activities may have taken place at the university, but there is no indication that they were condoned by the university; indeed, the swastika-daubing incident mentioned in the Europe1 citation was condemned by it. IMO they have no place in University of Paris II Panthéon-Assas, though they might merit addition to the GUD article.
 * The sexism allegations relate to a short-lived website, bestassas.com. I can see no reason for enwiki to cover that unpleasant one-off affair at all. Narky Blert (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks! That doesn't seem like it supports the claim "The university has been considered for decades as the hotbed of French far right". XIIIfromTOKYO, do you have a source that actually says that about this university?


 * As a general question just for my personal curiosity; in the US many universities tend to be somewhat leftist (in the US meaning of "left"). Is the same true of French Universities? Is there any evidence that the University of Paris II Panthéon-Assas is more to the right or left than is typical? As an analogy, in the US the University of California, Berkeley tends to lean more to the left than most and Texas A&M tends to lean more to the right than most. How about University of Paris II Panthéon-Assas? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think ment that most of these articles were published during the 2007-2016 period. I don't understand how an article published in 1995 could cover that period. Speaking of which, could you provide a translation from this article "Paris-II Assas continua donc la tradition de la faculté de droit de Paris, marquée, sans remonter aux Camelots du roi, par les riches heures de la corpo, présidée par Le Pen, et d'Occident, dirigé par Madelin. La tradition se perd. L'extrême droite lyncheuse, faute d'adversaires, a perdu son ressort anticommuniste".
 * An other is also needed from this article... : "Le local que la direction de l'université de droit Paris-II Panthéon-Assas vient d'attribuer au RED - le Rassemblement des étudiants de droite - dérange. (...) Car même si le RED n'a été créé qu'en 2000, il a déjà une lourde histoire derrière lui. Il n'est autre que le petit frère du GUD, le Groupe union défense née en 1968 à Assas et connu pour ses liens avec le Front de la jeunesse, son logo en forme de croix celtique et ses positions... radicales'"
 * ...This article... Cette arrivée (...) attire l'attention dans un établissement marqué par un passé de violences liées au militantisme d'extrême droite.]
 * ...or what's your opinion of what is said in this article.
 * And for Guy Macon's personal curiosity, yes some colleges have that kind of reputation in France. Toulouse Le Mirail, Rennes-II, or Paris VIII are often associated with left to far-left groups. Assas-Paris-II or Lyon-III are often associated with right to far-right groups. The Groupe Union Défense is notoriously associated with Assas. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Those are opinion pieces about elements of the student body from time to time. They are not about the university as such.
 * I could comment about les événements and their inexact parallels in UK and US, but that would be WP:OFFTOPIC. Narky Blert (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The student body is one aspect of the university, its research an other, its History an other one, its campus... Neutral point of view clearly says that an article must represent "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". That includes controversies.
 * You have failed to provide any translation so far. Still, you have managed to make a few mistakes, including claiming that an article published in 1995 was dealing with 2010's events.
 * Once again, there is a village pump for non-French speakers on FR.wiki. Not only a contributor form FR.wiki will be able to check these articles, but will also be able to under the political references in them. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)