Talk:Sciences Po/Archive 2

Edit War - Requests for Protection
Unfortunately, Launebee has returned to waging an edit war on this page. It looks like the article will again require edit protection. This is a request to lock the article from further editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.148.37 (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Why should it be protected? You need to explain here why you reverted the edits and perhaps a discussion should take place. this applies to you as well. Your edit summary was quite inadequate for the scale of the edits. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It will likely require protection because Launebee is always on here making edits that are not supported by the rest of the editors. This already happened at least once before which was why the article was protected for 6 months. This edit protection just finished, and already she has come back to do so. There has been a lot of discussion about this from the previous edit war in the Talk. Unfortunately he deletes anything people add and then adds bias material to make Sciences Po look bad. See his previous edits from just now for yourself. Nothing new here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7B94:E700:45BA:5443:FF6B:F509 (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)  Everyone else can waste their time trying to deal with Launebee, but I will not be on here again to do so because I have already spent time going through this which resulted in the first edit protection. If he wants to keep doing this after the edit protection has ended, I am not going to waste any more of my time trying to protect and improve this article. He can do whatever he wants to this site. I no longer care, but editors, consider yourselves on notice again for this. You can read the above comments for a true prophecy on this (Anon Created Section).


 * has a history of self-assertive / confrontational editing that runs against consensus, which was documented both here and on ANI. The community has already used a lot of energy and time trying to deal with this situation. Before implementing further significant changes to the lede, I suggest that Launebee discusses his edits on talk first so that we reach consensus. SalimJah (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I don’t understand how I am edit warring. I made a lot of changes and ALL was deleted just because it is me. And you can see I improved the lede, and I came back on things other users have changed meanwhile because it is not good publicity for SP.
 * The only non consensual point I see is the denomination, I think it shouldn’ be called university AT ALL, other think it should be ONLY university, so I took the middle way proposed : "Now, from the French point of view, that may not be all there is to it. There might be other requirements that a French University has to satisfy that Sciences Po doesn't. But, from an international point of view, I think it is undeniably a specialised university. I think WP:NPOV requires us to state both the points of view, viz., that it is a university from an international standpoint but it is not officially a university by the French criteria."
 * The article should be protected indeed against users who have been working for SP (and perhaps still are), who changed the lede since the protection has left, and now are "oddly" saying I am edit-waring.
 * --Launebee (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No, I did not say that you edit-warred. I only said that your edit involved a lot of changes, and that you need to explain them here. This is just so the discussion can progress.
 * I would also like to say to all the involved editors that the article talk pages are meant for content discussion only, not for making comments on the conduct of editors. Any conduct discussion should take place on user talk pages or bulletin boards like ANI. Making conduct comments here only vitiates the atmosphere and makes it that much harder to reach consensus.
 * To get the discussion going, I will copy below the current lead and Launebee's version of the lead in a box. It seems to me that Launebee needs to explain the rationale for hisher changes, and the other editors need to explain what objections they have. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, thanks for re-explaining me :). You can see I put more explanation in the edit summary. There was a clear advertisement and the text did not correspond with the sources. --Launebee (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You are edit-warring. It is not odd. We already went through this with you. I do not work for Sciences Po, nor have I ever. That is a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.148.37 (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I reverted 's modifications in the lede. The current wording appropriately reflects the above community consensus, and Launebee did not discuss those controversial edits before implementing them. This is POV pushing, together with newbie bullying, again... @ can you explain why the article has been semi-protected from editing? I don't see any reason why IPs should be banned from the conversation at this stage, especially when the user they disagree with has a documented history of non consensus-based editing. SalimJah (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * please provide your input in the discussion below so that we can work towards consensus. The IPs can also provide their input. Nothing will be accomplished by edit warring. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure,, IPs can still edit this talk page, at least at a technical level. But how long to you expect them to remain engaged? It's now the second time that the article is protected as a result of Launebee's confrontational editing practices. Several newbies out here have forcefully expressed their frustration with Launebee's documented aggressive way of editing -- and left. The issue went all the way up to ANI, and we collectively failed to deal with it at the time. No surprise that it is now coming back. I understand folks' severe disillusion as to how Wikipedia works as Launebee can edit war, exhaust the resources of his contradictors in endless but trivial arguments, and still get his version of the page protected while arguing against consensus. If we are to be an open and inclusive community -- one in which "nobody knows you're a dog" -- then we should be concerned about the messages we send. The above consensus has been very costly to reach. I think it's fair to restore it as the default version for the lede until Launebee can demonstrate that there is the support required to overturn it. Of course, if Launebee ends up being the last man standing/voicing, then I guess we're done. ;) SalimJah (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact is that it serves no purpose whatsoever to raise conduct issues on this page. So I would encourage to stop wasting time. Unless a good faith discussion takes place here from all the parties, and an effort is made to reach consensus, raising things at ANI or wherever else won't accomplish anything either. Please take it from me, this is how Wikipedia works. There is no other way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your spirit and message. Be there no confusion, I am merely asking that we try and live up to our own standards: treat each voice in here equally, based on the arguments and references it brings to the table, and not on how loud it barks, or for how long. So yes, we should discuss facts and substance, and stay away from personal attacks. But we should also enforce the kind of cooperative attitude which is conducive to folks' participation. Without people, there is no consensus to be reached. SalimJah (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

, has protected the page from "Persistent disruptive editing" from IP adresses, but now you are doing exactly the same reverts. Please stop. --Launebee (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * My reverts are self-explanatory. The initial version of the article which you edited massively without building consensus is here. It makes sense to refrain from making substantive edits to the version of the article which is being discussed on talk. Otherwise we won't manage to have a peaceful conversation: we can't work towards consensus while unilaterally editing the article. This is an instance of aggressive editing that does not help us move forward. I will refrain from reverting the article to its previous version again, but I quietly ask you to reconsider your position and self-revert, so as to demonstrate your willingness to talk and compromise. SalimJah (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

"On top of being a fake school and being a financial loophole for France"
clearly, this part should be removed :

""On top of being a fake school and being a financial loophole for France, Sciences Po is accused of being complicit with the "mediacratie". "Almost every French newspaper is run by an almunus of Sciences Po", and most of the journalists in France are alumni from Science Po, so it would give the school "a mediatic cover without equivalent" and permit it to "cultivate a culture of secrecy" about its internal affairs.""

added this part. It is presented as a common viewpoint, not even as a point of view point. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Not at all presented as a common viewpoint: it is clearly among criticism, and it is with quotation marks. If you are talking about the beginning, if you want I give the precision but it was obviously a point of view. --Launebee (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As anyone can see, no quotation marks can be found on the sentence I have provided. You are presenting that as a common viewpoint.
 * I don't understand why 1nfo.net is used. Even a blog would be better than that thing. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Everyone can see there are quotations marks! --Launebee (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Except if you are talking about the beginning of your quote, but then I already changed it in the article. Launebee (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

First paragraph
Original version:

Then "consensus" on the use of the word "university".

Then SalimJah version:

--Launebee (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Original version:

Launebee's version:

Changes I see: (1) selective university replaced by third-level education institution and dual terminology introduced. (2) most prestitious in France deleted and replaced by membership in consortia. Can both sides please state their rationale for their version? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 1) Selective not an official definition, middle way since I think we should not be talking of university at all) 2) the sources don’t say that, and not to be in the first sentence anyway --Launebee (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick reponse. Re (1) an RfC has decided the consensus among the community saying that it should indeed be called a University. You must accept it and move on. "Selective univeristy" is also a well-established term that means a univeristy that selects its entrants. SalimJah has been using that term for quite a while to describe Grande Ecoles as opposed to université. I think it is an acceptable term in this context. Re (2) I will await the response from the other editors. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. If you see the edit summary, the user (admin?) was giving a point of view, not seeing a consensus. The discussion is here with only one topic users and employees from SP: can we really talk about fair consensus in this case? Because I don’t see at all the problem of giving the two points of view, since in France it is clearly not a university. These users are clearly biased, you can easily see it in the fact they put back in the first sentence "one of the most prestigious", and that even if the sources are not saying that. I’m not saying we can’t all talk, but I don’t see how we can say there is consensus when all these people agree among them (and here are clearly saying false things on me, and reversed all my edits just because it’s me, the person who’s not doing advertisement for SP ).
 * For selective, there is a selection in all French universities: baed on the decision of the universities in masters and doctorate, and based on computer calculation and residence of applicants in bachelor. There is a selection in every French university (not counting the bac, which is thought as a selection), this is not special to SP.
 * And Salim Jah, who has been employed by SP, is not a reference :).
 * --Launebee (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * For "university", I am abiding to it. Note that the consensus was on calling it a university or not (I still think it shouldn’t even in English), not saying or not that according to French standards it is not. --Launebee (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose the change: Point 1) has been decided through the RfC. The term "selective" to describe this unniversity is accurate enough to convey the distinction between traditional universities and grandes écoles in France. It appropriately links back to the Grandes Ecoles page for those who wish to explore the difference in greater details. Regarding point 2), there is no question that Sciences Po is among the most prestigious grandes écoles in France. (I mean, the titles of the references speak for themselves.) This is a relevant fact to mention here. SalimJah (talk) 11:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Next step: For the issue (1) I can add a footnote explaining what is meant by "selective" so that the interpetation is clear, taking the content from the Grandes Ecoles page. Will that satisfy your, ?  For (2), we need response your response for the argument that the titles of the sources highlight the prestige of Sciences Po. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose the change (to SalimJah version): 1) once again, the former discussion was only on the use of the term "university". No, all French universities are "selective", describe the Grande Écoles as selective universities is just false. If you want to say that they can select themselves the students, you can put it in the article, not in the lede, even less in the first sentence. 2) the partially good reputation mustn’t be in the first sentence and the sources are absolutely not saying " widely considered to be one of the most prestigious in France." --Launebee (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * As Launebee strongly objects to the use of the word "selective", we could also consider deleting it altogether. Something like: "Sciences Po, or Paris Institute of Political Studies, is a university (known as a Grande Ecole in the French university system) located in Paris, France, and is widely considered to be one of the most prestigious in France." SalimJah (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) I see we reached a consensus on not putting "selective". 2) "widely considered to be one of the most prestigious in France" in the first sentence is obviously an advertisement and no source is saying that anyway. --Launebee (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm sincerely trying to compromise and reach a common ground here. Regarding point 2), could you please tell us in which sense the titles of the sources do not highlight the prestige of Sciences Po within the French university system? I mean, we could dig out many other supporting facts (alumni list, admission rate, proportion of Sciences Po professors regularly featured in the media, university rankings -- one detailed argument by an IP can be found under point 2 here), but since you added those references yourself... Also, no offense, but could you explain why you're fighting the above statement on this article lead while supporting a strikingly similar statement on this one? SalimJah (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. You should read WP:NOR. You are saying the sources are proving something. I disagree, but this is not the point. Your sources are only saying SP is prestigious, but like a lot of French universities and Grandes Écoles, and even that it is never mentioned on their Wikipedia page). It is never written "widely considered as". The edit you gave is only a language thing. If you are talking about the text, the source is clearly stating that PA has an "image prestigieuse de “première université juridique de France”" (but the word "prestigious" is not in the PA article anyway). The sources are just not saying something like that. The idea of elite reputation should be in the lede, and it is, but with the strong criticism too, and not in the first sentence of course. --Launebee (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The version now in the article comes from this edit. It seems a fair middle ground between the different positions. --Launebee (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Second paragraph
Original version:

Launebee version:

Just too much internal structure info for the lede. --Launebee (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The fact that Sciences Po focuses solely on the social sciences is noteworthy and deserves inclusion in the lede. A quick reference to the graduate schools allows the reader to rapidly understand the areas in which it operates. SalimJah (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Questions: I agree with that the original version focuses too much on the internal structure. I can reword it. But I am not sure of the significance of the graduate schools. Are they all based at the main campus? The Paris School of International Affairs seems notable enough to have a separate page. It should probably be mentioned here. What about the others? What is the relationship between the "departments" and "graduate schools"? Are they included in one another or are they separate? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Answer: Graduate schools are all based at the main Paris campus. They are separate from the departments at a functional level: the departments conduct research and host the professors and PhD students, while the graduate schools focus on "applied" education / professional training. SalimJah (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I notice that the graduate schools are not covered in the body of the article at present. So, only the briefest mention should be made of them. Once they are covered in the body, they can be summarised in the lead. I will propose a compromise version of the paragraph below. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Compromise paragraph below: Please provide your comments. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the Boulevard Saint-Germain, the main campus is Rue Saint Guillaume, it is even a synonym for SP (example ), but I am ok with the rest. --Launebee (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, old issue coming back (see point 1)b) here)... The map is crystal clear. Rue Saint Guillaume is the historical location, where Sciences Po first settled. I still assume good faith in all of your arguments -- providing detailed answers and references when asked, compromising when relevant -- and keep your repeated attempts at putting mine in question aside, but there are limits to what I can reasonably do in the face of your refusal to see the facts . SalimJah (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, old issue not resolved. I don’t why once again you are implying my bad faith here. It seems because you don’t know how WP works. You are linking to a map from SP website, and you say it is clear. I disagree, we are talking about the main campus here, not the main campuses. But it does not matter because there is the rule WP:NOR if possible. No source is saying SP is principally around Boulevard SG, but so many are calling SP "la rue SG", and here for example two sources which are explicitely saying "27 rue saint Guillaume, le siège de Sciences Po"  You can see in the first link that the antisfascist tags (for those who don’t understand, it’s because SP has traditionally been the center of student right-wing extremism, but now it is finished, there is just some minority groups but like in nearly all French universities so I don’t think it should be in the article) were put on the "façade" of SP, rue Saint-Guillaume. --Launebee (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Finesse: Dear both, please keep off conduct-related comments so that we can hope to reach a consensus. It seems to me that the two of you are talking about different things. The map shows various buildings of the campus surrounding Boulevard SG. The sources cited by say that one building, albeit the main building, is on Rue Saint Guillaume. Either way, the issue isn't particularly important. We are just trying to tell the reader where the campus is. So, the better known place name should be used. So, I would like to finesse this issue and move on to other more important issues. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources are mentioning rue SG, it is the better known place. --Launebee (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Third & fourth paragraphs
Original version:

Launebee version:

More coherent, and closer to the source for the creation. Citing only the best rank could be seen as advertisement, but I think it is a notable thing so I’m for letting it there. --Launebee (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Sciences Po curriculum is a defining feature of the institution vis-à-vis traditional French universities, see here. This is worth mentioning here. I don't see any major issue with Launebee's proposal to modify the last sentence of the original text: "Sciences Po was  created as a private institution by Émile Boutmy in  1872  to  promote a new class of French politicians in the aftermath of the French defeat in the  Franco-Prussian war of 1871." SalimJah  (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The source you give is an advertisement text from SP. --Launebee (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comments: 's first sentence is good. But it is unfinished. The transformation of the old private institution into a public institution and a Grandes Ecole also needs to be covered. I am not happy with the "Nowadays" tag, which suggests that the elite nature of the institution is a recent phenomenon. From what I remember in the sources, it has always been an elite institution. So, reworking of this sentence is needed. It would also be better to focus on Sciences Po producing elites (who weren't elites by birth). No quibble about the QS ranking, which is factual. Known for multidisciplinarity is not supported by the source, which is WP:SPS. I am also not sure if the membership in consortia is important to be in the lead. Can we work towards a better version of Launebee's version, taking these comments into account? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The elite reputation is very recent. In the past, it was more well-known for its Vichy past and being the center of far right network (Action Nationaliste of Jean-Gilles Malliarakis etc.). This past is the past, but the good reputation is really recent. It is not producing elites (which does not mean anything), but it has indeed partially (not every time, not everywhere) the reputation of an elite institution :). --Launebee (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's only your opinion, andI can't see any reference to back these claims. Just have a look at List of Sciences Po people, and you will see that the "elite-production" is not a recent trend.
 * The ""well-known for its Vichy past and being the center of far right network"" is a (very bad) joke, right ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for intervening always in a so respectful way. We were talking about reputation, its good reputation is indeed very recent and dates from Descoing rebranding. You give a SP source about its past (saying it is neither black nor white but grey). I read in research books that indeed, there were some resistants in the ELSP, but there was a huge problem of Collaborationism by a lot of people from Sciences Po. You can see it this independant research that the provisory Goverment at the Liberation called SP "foyer de collaboration hitlérienne" ("center of nazi collaboration") and it is why it was nationalized in 1945. Researchs are pretty clear on that fact. --Launebee (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This "very recent" is only your opinion. You can see it the same "independant research" that you have just provided that this school was perceived as an elitist one as early as the 1890's : "une école privée qui s'est arrogée de fait le monopole sur la préparation aux grands concours administratifs" (P.99) "cette école réservée à la grande bourgeoisie" (P.100). You have read this article, so you know that your claim is wrong.
 * The article only says that the left had tryed for decade to nationalize this schools, and that after the wax the "thesis" used was to accuse it of being "foyer de collaboration hitlérienne". The author of the article only uses the word "thesis". But he descrided it as "les travers n'échappe cependant pas aux travers de la littérature communiste de l'époque, celui de l'amalgame, de l'extrapolation à partir d'indices douteux, voir de contres-vérités hatives". That's how this thesis is described by the author of this article.
 * This article can clearly be used to expand the History section, but it describes what happened after the war, not during the ward.
 * And please, keep your sarcasm for yourself, you are only heating up the discussion. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * To have a monopole, and be reserved to rich people does not mean be part of the intellectual elite.
 * No, it is not at all a "thesis". It is a direct quote from the text nationalizing SP, written by Coignot, resistant, survivor and escapor of nazi prisons, and member of the provisory assembly at the Liberalization. (And anyway, I was talking about reputation, even if it were true, this reputation has been going on up to Descoings rebranding.)
 * --Launebee (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me repeat who this thesis is described by the author of the article : "les travers n'échappe cependant pas aux travers de la littérature communiste de l'époque, celui de l'amalgame, de l'extrapolation à partir d'indices douteux, voir de contres-vérités hatives". Not a real work, just some pourly written propaganda.
 * The article also axplains that most of the members of the Provisional Government of the French Republic were Science-Po alumni : "sur les 13 membres du gouvernement provisoires, 8 sont anciens élèves de la rue Saint-Guillaume(...)" (P.101, Note 11).
 * Once again, what you say about the article is very different from what the article actually says. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 08:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, I was talking about reputation. The communist party was very strong and listened until recent years.
 * I don’t think it is respectful for Coignot, resistant, survivor and escapor of nazi prisons, to say his say on the attitude of Sciences Po during WW2 is propaganda.
 * The quote you make begins with "to reassure themselves, they calculated that". So it means that they trusted the Goverment not to take hard mesures on them for their past. However, it is true the text written by Coignot, member of the provisory assembly at the Liberalization, was not from the Provisory Government, but a official demand to it by the Provisory Assembly (for making SP national and democratic), if I read again the text (p. 101).
 * --Launebee (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Coignot was a politician, and he had an agenda. He used the deaths, tortures, and rapes of millions to try to reach his political goals (with were set before the war, as the article explains). Repesct him if you want, but please refrain from mentionning it, his beheaviour is out of the topic of this discussion.
 * Once again, the author of this article explain that this thesis "n'échappe cependant pas aux travers de la littérature communiste de l'époque, celui de l'amalgame, de l'extrapolation à partir d'indices douteux, voir de contres-vérités hatives". Nothing to trust. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Since it is a French source being discussed and there is no agreement on what it says, I recommend that the issue be taken to the French Wikipedia. Let us end this discussion now, and move on to the next one, which is probably going to be more substantive. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, "someone" has already been kicked out of the French Wikipedia because of obvious reference falsification. French admins did their jobs. The issue has already been treated there, so it is better to treat it here now. I strongly advice you to ask anyone who can speak French to check what the reference is really saying. There is no need to drag the discussion for months, if a well earned ban can fix the situation once and for all. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is obviously not saying that. I could give you other sourcces, but it seems this discussion is pointless, you are here to fight, not to talk. --Launebee (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "you are here to fight, not to talk" : more than a basic personnal attack, that's just an insult. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Next step:, thanks for joining the discussion. Please refrain from personalised and conduct-related remarks so that we can reach consensus sooner.
 * There is indeed a "Vichy past", but this source makes it clear that it was short-lived and the school did what it had to do to survive under occupation. I don't think it is appropriate to take pot-shots based on this predicament. In any case, these matters are not covered in the body of the article. So they do not have a place in the lead (yet).
 * I still don't see a source from that demonstrates that the reputation of Sciences Po is recent. Let us focus on that issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is one thing to make do with the Germans, another to actively collaborate. I am not saying at all the situation was an easy situation, but this source is wrong if it suggests otherwise. Anyway, it does not concern the lead. And it is true, I don’t have a source saying it is new. The nowadays can be removed then. I just don’t understand Kautilya3, I thought you were only arbitrating, but here you add something nobody mentioned, so you are more part of the discussion it seems :). --Launebee (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not "arbitrating". It is called "moderation". Since you are discussing a French source which I can't understand (sorry), I went to look for a source in English and found this. I think it is a good source, published by Oxford University Press. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Don’t get me wrong. I said from the beginning that there were resistants in SP too, but there was also a lot of collaborationist (it is difficult to know the exact number, and their motivation of course), and SP had a very bad reputation for this. But anyway, I have no source saying that it lasted until Descoings, so ok. --Launebee (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Final paragraph
The critics are not only about the oligarchy thing, but even more the education provided. And no critic for being the centers of scandals, the news are just saying there are a lot of them. --Launebee (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The original version is balanced and neutral in its tone, while conveying the required information. "Strongly criticized for creating an oligarchy of incompetent people in France" is a strong value judgement. Poor / non balanced write-up is also an issue in the existing "controversies and scandals" section, which currently accounts for 1/4 of the body of the article. This issue also needs to be addressed. SalimJah (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * SalimJah, your version simply does not fit the sources. The sources critisize the content of SP education, and say that there are numbers of scandals. Once again WP:NOR. The scandals section is very long simply because there has been a lot of scandals and judicial sentences, and largely covered by the press. --Launebee (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Ok, this is the most difficult part of the lead. MOS:LEAD tells us to cover "prominent controversies" but not violate WP:NPOV. When there is both positive and negative information to be given, we always give the positive first (unless the negative stuff is overwhelming, which I don't think is the case here). So, I tend toward the original version. I think "creating an oligarchy in French society" is fair criticism, even though I see Peter Gumbell saying this for all Grande Ecoles, not just Sciences Po. In fact, ENA seems to be more the target.
 * I fail to understand the "incompetent" part. The pharsing in the source is: "a machine for perpetuating a brilliant but blinkered, often arrogant and frequently incompetent ruling freemasonry. This cannot be reduced to just "incompetent". Moreover, the article also elaborates later on the source of incompetence as being "rigid and narrow, favouring abstraction or deep analysis rather than creativity or imagination". So I think 's version overstates the point. The source is saying that they are good at analysis but lacking in imagination. This is some kind of a mismatch of expectations, not incompetence. In fact, incompetence is hard to imagine because these people are also said to be "brilliant".
 * Let us discuss this first. We can get to "scandals" later. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is clearly critisized of incompetence, or at least no real education. The fact is two third of the ENA students come from SP (Paris). SP is a preparation for the ENA, and a lot of books have been written on the blindness of ENA people. But because it is finally from the ENA that they come out, it is true this criticism focus more on ENA than SP. --Launebee (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here about the absence of proper education : "cet enseignement constitue une imposture intellectuelle" " le contenu de l'enseignement importe peu, on ne dit pas ce qu'on a fait à Sciences Po, mais plutôt : j'ai fait Sciences Po. L'établissement n'est pas l'outil d'un apprentissage, mais une fin en soi." "recettes nauséabondes qui font la noblesse d'Etat. Alors, commençons par supprimer Sciences Po, c'est-à-dire : le privilège légalisé, l'écrémage social et le hold-up financier dont il est le produit."
 * Basically: SP gives NO education, just a degree which gets you to go in a cast of priviledges, with no actual expertise learned there. It is elitist, but not in the sense that SP alumni are the best ones, but in the sense that because they come from SP, they have the high ranked jobs and receive in the end a lot of public money, even though they have no proper education.
 * --Launebee (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The author of this opinion column is Nicolas Jounin. He is not a specialist of French higher education. His only notoriety comes from his notorious fight against cops. I don't really understand how his opinion could be relevant. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I missed the point about freemasonry.
 * So now we have to explain that this school is "nazi" and linked to "freemasonry", but was also ruled by a "gay" "junky" who used to hire toyboys. 718smiley.svg
 * Yes, all of that is somewhere in the article or in the reference, so it must be in the lead. 718smiley.svg XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , could you tell XIIIfromTOKYO that we should be serious here. Otherwise he should be sanctioned. And could you remove the smileys? The nazi regime and the collaboration is something serious, not a joke! He obviously changes the meaning of the texts: freemasonery obviously means here a "cast", not actual freemasonery. --Launebee (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The author of the article is an academic, so to be taken more seriously than a journalist, and he’s an alumni from SP, so he talks from research but from experience too. The personal attack, regarding which has nothing to do with his work as sociologist, is disgusting.
 * Kautilya3, regarding the reputation of SP, there even is a surname a lot of newspaper and blogs from intellectuals or others are talking about and often agree with: "Sciences Pipo" (or "Sciences Pipeau), which could be explained as "fake school"
 * --Launebee (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment about sources: As per WP:NEWSORG, opinion columns in newspapers are not reliable sources. If they are from notable individuals, they can be mentioned with WP:In-text attribution, but they cannot be stated as facts. Please make an attempt to give full citations for sources, including author, publisher etc. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * All the sources collaborate this critic. Le Monde article is talking about the "old debate on 'Sciences Po, Sciences Pipo'". Ok, I changed the content of the article to neutrally state these critics and removed strongly and incompetent, and added things to be closer to these sources.--Launebee (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, a student interviewed is using this expression. With a simple google test, the first websites to come are uncyclopedia.wikia.com, egaliteetreconciliation.fr and 18-25 forum of www.jeuxvideo.com both of them notorious alt-right groups. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I gave 8 sources. Including a Le Monde article talking about "the old debate 'Sciences Po, Sciences Pipeau'". This assimilation to far right is simply ridiculous and does not stick to sources. I can give you far-right links saying the US are in North America, it does not make it a far right idea. --Launebee (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Are they reliable sources, in this case, scholarly sources written by educationists? If not, they have no place in the lead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The article, or the lead, is not saying it is a fake school, but that critics say it is. Le Monde, France Inter and the Huffington Post are indeed reliable sources :). --Launebee (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, some personns interviewed said that. It's not an opinion backed by these newspapers. They are not reliable sources.XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with ., if you want to stick to this position, you need to work harder. For example, produce quotations and translations from the sources. As I have already said, the opinions of random individuals don't carry any weight. They should either be from scholars/educationists or the assessments of news reporters summarising a widespread feeling. Otherwise, it would be undue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A Le Monde article is saying that there is " the old debate on 'Sciences Po, Sciences Pipo'", so indeed it is assessment of news reporter summarising a widespread feeling and not an opinion. France Inter is making a whole emission to discuss if Sciences Po is Sciences Pipo. --Launebee (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I put more sources, in particular you can see the "Sciences Po for Dummies" with chapter 18 "Common ideas on Sciences Po" and among them "Sciences Pipeau". Of course, they disagree but they clearly say it is a common idea on Sciences Po. --Launebee (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Sciences Po for Dummies" describes it as a university, and uses this word in all the book. It says a lot about the 1936-1945 era (attacks against the school that started before WWII), and about its elitism. Are you sure that you want to use this book as a reference ?XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I said, this book is obviously a praise of Sciences Po, but it very clearly acknowlegdes that being in reality "Sciences Pipeau" is one of the main common ideas on SP. --Launebee (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you give a precie quote and reference saying that is it "one of the main common ideas on SP" ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The source I give has a chapter called "10 common ideas on Sciences Po" and among these only 10 common ideas, there is Sciences Pipeau (even though the author disagree with this idea).
 * --Launebee (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, SP for Dummies clearly states that SP is not a university (chapter "Une bestiole à deux têtes").
 * --Launebee (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The reference doesn't say that it is "one of the main common ideas on SP". Even if it says so, that would be only the author's opinion (some nobodies, with no qualification or authority on the higher education topic).
 * Again, no Consensus about it, so it shall be removed. XIIIfromTOKYO
 * By the way, it clearly describe it as a university (part III : "la grande université du XXIe siècle"), and chapter 11 calling it a university ("chapter 11 : une université en prise avec son temps"). (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The word "main" is not at all in the article. The book uses "university" as a matter of speaking, but it clearly states "it is not a university". --Launebee (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - I am afraid there is still more heat than light in this discussin. Let us focus on the "Sciences Pipeau" label. Who coined it? Why did they coin it? What do people mean by it now? Please check good quality sources such as  these and state what they say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess all these questions are answered in the paragraph "Reputation and criticism" of the article. Le Monde, France Inter, SP for Dummies, etc. are good quality sources :). In Google Scholar, this article from Descoing is talking about it, saying this nickname "a la vie dure" (it means "it is used a lot in spite of the elapsing of time"). --Launebee (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems the consensus is on this version:

Launebee (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

As already said, no consensus for me for ''Critics often nickname the school "Sciences Pipeau" (pronounced "Sciences Pipo") because they consider it is giving a "fake" education. Sciences Po has been at the centre of a number of political and financial scandals.'' XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Since no consensus, I removed the whole subject of reputation from the lead. (Some have been trying to put again things about prestige that the sources don’t say.) --Launebee (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Academics Section
Hello, I changed the 'Activities' section to 'Academics', and wrote added a couple subsections listing the schools at Sciences Po. I know that Launebee generally deletes anything people add to this page, so please protect my work if you think it improves the wiki. I do not have time to be on here everyday. I just had a few hours on a Saturday and wanted to improve the article. Moderators: please consider protecting this section if and when Launebee deletes it as 'unencyclopedic.' (not signed)
 * Thanks for your attack "Launebee will probably delete this as 'unencyclopedic', though I copied other uni wikis. I do not have time to deal with her, I will leave that fight with the rest of you." in the edit summary. I am not in a fight. Indeed, your changes seem too much internal information, but seems it is not obviously too much, I don’t touch it if nobody else see a problem. --Launebee (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

46/60 references are about "criticism"
I have started to have a look at the number of references that back "criticism" (let's call it that way).

46 out of 60 references are there only to give exemples of critics. I have also read Reliable sources and undue weight, and came to the conclusion that this article was obviously not neutral.

As I have already mentioned, when I saw that this school was targeted because it was the lair "nazi" and linked to "freemasonry", but was also ruled by a "gay" "junky" who used to hire toyboys... well. Time for the arbcom to work ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The kind of criticism you are talking about is your invention. And If there are so many references, it is because you are denying the serious criticism. --Launebee (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you explain me why you also remove anything that could be seen as positive about this school. You say that it's too long, but you don't shorten it. You simply erase it
 * 75 % of the references are about criticism. But that part is not too long, right ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a content I added, someone wrote more about it, it is only a small event about bad review of students. It is a criticism of Sciences Po by its students that I removed. --Launebee (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me quote }, the real author of that part : "The survey in question wasn't presented in a neutral way: the article only mentioned results that were negative for Sciences Po. Added a reference from L'Etudiant, the site that originally reported the survey."
 * This part stated something positive about the school, and you removed it.
 * I just want to make the situation clear before starting the ArbCom process.
 * All the process is public, so your actions here, with Eduniversal and/or Panthéon-Assas University... will be available to anyone. Contributors, journalists... XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How is it good to say that students were disapointed by the degree? I put again the positive part if you really want so, it was just too long. --Launebee (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Research
Hello! @Launebee I noticed you've taken down a section I wrote talking about the various research centers at Sciences Po. I'm well aware of the heated discussions surrounding Sciences Po's reputation etc. on this page, but I've actually been trying to steer clear of that in favor of fleshing out some of the shorter sections in the article.

Research was 32% of SP's budget in 2015 so clearly it's an important part of what the university does - the part on 'Research' surely needs more detail. I don't see how what I wrote about the research centers was controversial. I included references and made an effort to keep the language neutral. Could you explain why you took it down please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toden102 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to confess that I don't understand that either. On the Panthéon-Assas University talk page, less than a week ago clearly said that anyone should "stop removing sourced content" and talk before removing slice of the article. And then *BOUM* than 5000 bytes removed, and then *BOUM* *BOUM* a request for a full lock of the page . And it hasn't been discussed here first. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * +1. This is not a one time thing, and Launebee has exhausted my time an emotional resources with this kind of behavior. My experience trying to turn this controversy into something constructive indicates that good faith collaboration is extremely costly to maintain and largely failing in this case. The history of Launebee's contributions speaks for itself. I support the Arbcom process. SalimJah (talk) 08:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The content seemed unencyclopedical to me, because too much of internal information., is it? If you think it is ok, I am ok to with the added "research" content. --Launebee (talk) 09:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Launebee, thanks for your reply. Are there clear guidelines anywhere stating that internal sources are 'unencyclopedical' ones? Genuine question, please send it if so.
 * I had a look at a few articles for a few other universities and they all seemed to have referenced internal information a lot. On top of this, I feel I made the effort to ensure information from the Sciences Po's website was phrased in a neutral way. E.g. the Sciences Po website described one of its centers like this: "Jointly established in Paris by Sciences Po and the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies (MPIfG), the Centre aims to make substantive contributions to the social sciences in Europe and to enrich academic and political dialogue between France and Germany." But in the article I phrased this as a much simpler, more factual statement: "Sciences Po founded the Max Planck Sciences Po Center on Coping with Instability in Market Societies (known as MaxPo) in co-operation with the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies (MPIfG)." and left out any stuff about about 'enriching dialogue' etc that could be viewed as advertisement. As I said before, I think the 'Research' section was in clear need of fleshing out and I don't think what I added was controversial.
 * Anyway, thanks for replying and explaining your thinking! Toden102 (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Uninvolved editor comment - Please note that WP:RS states that articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Self-sourced material should only be used to source additional detail for facts that are already established by third-party secondary sources. That does not seem to be the case here. Secondly, Wikipedia generally prefers prose text to lists. See WP:EMBED for the guidelines as well as how to format lists so that they do not interfere with prose reading. Finally, as an academic, I feel that the so-called "research centres" are often gimmicks used by Universities to make themselves look impressive to funding organisations or donors. Whether they are notable or not is questionable. Some centres are certainly extremely notable, e.g., the varous Beckman Institutes in the US universities. (They are evidently named after a rich donor but most of them have become independent institutions in their own right.) But in most other cases, the research centres are just branded research groups. In this case, the long list of research centres is WP:UNDUE unless there is verification of notability from third-party sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Kautilya3 That's very informative, thank you. I agree the current long list formatting is awkward and needs improving one way or another.
 * I'd argue that some of research centers mentioned should remain in the article e.g. the MaxPo center seems notable, as does the OFCE since it also operates as an independent forecasting body. I think there's also a case for including the seven Sciences Po centers that are affiliated with France's National Center for Scientific Research (obviously there needs to be a good source confirming the centers that have that affiliation).
 * However, it seems fair enough to me that any other 'research centers' that don't fit that criteria are removed and don't get a mention. Toden102 —Preceding undated comment added 12:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit-war (May 2017)
The edit war is on my three edits. Two of them are in separate sections (above and under), the third one is me putting in the article "A Sciences Po-run poll suggested that 93% of alumni would recommend the school. ". Does anyone is opposing to this? --Launebee (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Use of sources etc. in 'Reputation and criticism' section
Hi everyone! I wanted to raise the topic of the section entitled ‘Reputation and Criticism’. I definitely think criticisms of Sciences Po need to be talked about in the article, but I think it needs a major re-write, since it currently includes some rather contentious things that I don't think are adequately backed up. Some examples: you seem to be well-informed on this, so if it's ok can I ask your opinion? Are there guidelines on using personal blogs as evidence? Could the way some of the sources are currently presented be considered ‘giving undue weight’ etc? Toden102 (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The section says ‘Sciences Po is accused of being a "fake" school’ that doesn’t provide ‘proper intellectual education’. This is a pretty strong statement, and I don’t think it’s adequately supported by the sources used. One of the sources is simply a link to an entire book, not even a quotation or even chapter from it (that's this reference ). Another source is a very short blogpost that actually praises teaching at Sciences Po as ‘intellectually and culturally interesting’. Another source is a short interview with an undergraduate at Sciences Po who has praise for the school as well as criticisms. Another source is a blogpost from the website ‘Contrepoint’ that criticizes both the ENA and Sciences Po for educating a class of leaders who are too homogenous and conventional in their thinking – I think this is quite a common criticism of France’s grande ecole system so should be mentioned; however, that's quite different to claiming that Sciences Po is a “fake” university.
 * Currently a whole paragraph is devoted to a single blogpost by a man named Giles Devers. This blogpost is written in a provocative and polemical style – I wouldn’t say it’s scholarly research or objective journalism by any conventional standard. Surely it’s currently given undue weight?
 * No, blogs are not reliable sources. As I said erlier sources should be reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Blogs are either unpublished or self-published, and so they don't qualify. Even published opinion columns in newspapers have to be treated as "opinions" and attributed to the writers (see WP:NEWSORG). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

：：Thanks, that's good to know. Unless there are better sources to support them, I think it makes sense that those bits aren't included in the article.Toden102 (talk) 07:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at all, Kautilya3 says that it cannot be used as source, but it can be used as personnal opinion if the author is notable. --Launebee (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * @Toden102: I am grateful for the time you spent on this reference review. :) I agree. The material on criticisms is mostly legitimate, but it needs more context, as well as a major rewrite in terms of sourcing and tone. The material on scandals sometimes reads like an indictment, however. It needs to be appropriately trimmed and rewritten. SalimJah (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your replies, guys! I think you both made sensible points. I don't object to these sources remaining in the article, provided adequate context is given to ensure it's clear these are personal opinions as expressed on blogs etc. As it is, I don't think that's made clear enough in the article. I also agree the language needs to be toned down.
 * I haven't looked at the section on Financial Scandals in detail but I'll try to go over it properly in the next few days. Toden102 (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The scandal section looks like an indictement because Sciences Po has been indicted a lot by justice. Every source has to be related in a neutral way. So of course criticism will look "bad", and praises "good". About Kautilya3, the provocative style is obvious, but because he is an important academic, it should stay as it is. Launebee (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The author of that blogpost was expressing a personal opinion on something that is not his area of expertise (he's a specialist in medical law). It was not an academic piece of work - to be honest it comes across as more of a rant (e.g. phrases like 'Tu comptes rembourser quand, mon Jean-Claude ?' and mockingly referring to the higher education minister as the 'Sinistre de l’Enseignement'). I have no particular objection it being mentioned but there just isn't any good reason to devote an entire paragraph to it.Toden102 (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Concerning the debate everyone is having, consider the words of Solomon: "Whoever corrects a scoffer gets himself abuse, and he who reproves a wicked man incurs injury." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.148.37 (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Sciences Po campus location
The current version of the Sciences Po lead reads:

"Its main campus encircles Boulevard Saint Germain in the 7th arrondissement of Paris."

I understand that Launebee wants to delete the "encircles Boulevard Saint Germain" part (described as an "attempt to associate Sciences Po with great things"). From my side, I feel like it makes the campus location precise (in accordance with the campus map), while keeping the statement short and appropriate for an article lead. What do people think? I'd be nice to reach consensus on this relatively easy to solve issue. SalimJah (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems like appropriate information for a lead to me. The mention of Boulevard St Germain is fine, but maybe there's better phrasing than 'encicles'? E.g. 'Its main campus is spread across a collection of buildings around Boulevard St Germain in the 7th arrondissement of Paris' or something like that. Toden102 (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, "encircles" is proper English and conveys the same meaning as your sentence above, but in a more concise way. SalimJah (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say "encircles" is a synonym of "encloses" or "surrounds", which isn't quite right here. From the map (link posted above), 's suggestion seems a more accurate reflection, but the wording could possibly be made more concise. Maybe simply "Its main campus is around Boulevard St Germain in the 7th arrondissement of Paris". Robminchin (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Robminchin is right about the English, but anyway the main campus is rue Saint-Guillaume. The other around bd SG are secondary ones. Mentioning rue Saint Guillaume is WP:NOR from a map. No source is saying SP is principally around Boulevard SG, but so many are calling SP "la rue Saint-Guillaume", it main campus and here for example two sources which are explicitely saying "27 rue saint Guillaume, le siège de Sciences Po"   You can see in the first link that the antisfascist tags were put on the "façade" of SP, rue Saint-Guillaume. --Launebee (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The map clearly shows a number of buildings (giving addressees for 10) on various different streets around bd S-G and is described as the "Campus de Paris". What is on rue S-G may be the main building and the administrative address, but it's clearly not the whole of the main campus. Describing what a map says is not OR, any more than describing what any other source says.
 * If you look at other articles on universities with distributed buildings around an area, it is normal to describe the area rather than giving the address of the main building. The LSE is said to be in Clare Market, not on Houghton Street (where the Old Building is located), for example. The second reference refers explicitly to creating an Oxford-like campus: if you were to insist Oxford University was located on Wellington Square rather than around Oxford you would look ridiculous. Robminchin (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Robminchin. Plus, this sentence is describing SP’s Paris campus in relation to its regional campuses in other cities. So even if the Rue St Guillaume building is more famous, we're describing the Paris campus as a whole so it makes sense to say ‘located around Bvd St Germain’ or words to that effect. Toden102 (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you everyone. Seems like we have a consensus for "Its main campus is located around Boulevard Saint-Germain in the 7th arrondissement of Paris". If so, I'll go ahead and implement the change. SalimJah (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)