Talk:Sciences Po/Archive 3

RfC about an edit-war in the lead
Should the lead contain the following text:

Launebee (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose, absolutely no source in the article is supporting the first statement, and the word prestigious should not be in any university article anyway (as an adjective to them). No source for the second statement, and not neutral if nothing is said about the bad reputation too.. Launebee (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Qualified support. "Most prestigious" is an instance of WP:PEACOCK. It should be weakened to something like "one of leading institutions". Other than that, the rest is fine. A lead doesn't need to have citations except for any contentious claims. The article body should provide support for any claims made here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Qualified support. Yes, adjusting that line to something more neutral-sounding seems fair to me. Toden102 (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Qualified support. Agreed. Kautilya3's statement is correct and balanced. SalimJah (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose   About 80% of it looks unencyclopedic and cherry-picked to be promotional.  This includes those portions of the alumni that look vague and cherry-picked as if to promote the university. The "seven of the last eight French presidents" does look fine though, not having these problems.   North8000  (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * North8000Thanks for your reply. I agree on the general point that this part needs to be re-worded to sound more neutral, but I disagree on your point about alumni – as I said in the thread below it seems to me like significant information, plus looking at other Wikipedia pages for some of Science Po’s partner universities / other French universities, it seems to be common practice to mention well-known alumni in the lead.
 * Could you explain a bit more about why you object to it? Do you think it would be ok if more citations were added? Why do you feel the bit about alumni including French presidents is relevant but not the bits about CEOs of French companies/head of the UN/heads of state etc?Toden102 (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment' there is never any reason in any WP article to make use of the word "prestigious". If justified, the material in the article will make it obvious, as it does here. Better "Sciences Po Alumni include many notable public figures, including seven of the last eight French presidents, 12 foreign heads of state or government, a former United Nations Secretary-General, and many CEOs of France's 40 largest companies; it was ranked 4th globally in politics and international studies by the QS World University Subjects Rankings 2017."  DGG ( talk ) 07:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC) "prestigious", "even most prestigious" is weak as compared with the plain facts. Any university can claim these adjectives, and a great man do; none can claim a comparable record. " The best rule of writing is to try to omit any adjectives of praise, however justified.  DGG ( talk ) 07:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This sounds fair to me! As I've said elsewhere, I think that information on notable alumni should be in the lead (in common with plenty of other pages on universities). But I think it makes sense that terms like 'prestigious' don't really need to be included.Toden102 (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Most prestigious", without evidence? No way. Maproom (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * There has been an edit-war, this text being put again five times in the lead.. This whole text should be obviously removed, and no text about the reputation should be brought back in the lead until we find a consensus for a neutral statement in it, summarizing the two sides of SP reputation. --Launebee (User:Launebee) 23:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Launebee, leaving aside that other sentence for a moment, why do you think the bit about well-known SP alumni (French presidents, head of UN, head of IMF etc.) should be removed? My feeling is that it's pretty important information about the school that should be mentioned in the lead. That's also completely in line with a ton of other wikipedia pages on universities with notable alumni. However, it's something you’ve recently tried to remove quite a few times (e.g.) and now include it in the text that you argue should be deleted - could you clarify why you object to the bit about notable alumni in particular? Toden102 (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand your point of view. My view was that, being linked to reputation, it should not be there if there isn’t the part about bad reputation, but it is true it can be argued it is not a question of reputation. But it is not neutraly worded. So it is to be erased first, and then put back neutraly worded. --Launebee (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * So you oppose in fact. The question is about keeping this sentence as such. If we agree on the removal, then the next step is to agree on what to put, but that is another discussion. No source in the whole article is saying that it is prestigious or "one of the leading institution" in Europe. If no source is saying so, we can't make that up So for now, let’s only agree on the fact this sentence should be removed. Launebee (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with the word "prestigious", never to be used. Here the sentence is not even justified because no source is saying it is prestigious in Europe. Isn’t the wording "many CEOs of France's 40 largest companies" not neutral for many, and advertisement style for the end? --Launebee (talk) 09:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you have a point regarding the use of terms like 'prestigious', but as I've said elsewhere, I think the bit about notable alumni is significant information, is completely in line with other university pages and so it makes sense that it's included. Why do you consider the bit about CEOs to be 'advertising'? And why do you object to the mention of CEOs but not the mention of French presidents, heads of UN and international organizations etc? Toden102 (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Moving forward
Finally, Toden102 said that there is a strong consensus for this sentence altering the lead and I agree. So I make a new request for the new sentence he wants to put, along with SalimJah. --Launebee (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Which one of the following three alternatives should appear in the lead? --Launebee (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey, first sentence, version 1 (see version 2)
Is this sentence acceptable in the lead?


 * Oppose: The source is not saying that and is only a promoting brochure. No source at all is saying that SP is a leading institution in Europe. Only one source is saying that it is considered as an elite institution in France, but nothing else. --Launebee (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: Let me quote the source: "The research units, all leaders in the social sciences in Europe etc." (p. 1). Campus France is a governmental agency whose role is to promote and help with international student exchanges. It has nothing to do with Sciences Po and operates under the aegis of the French ministry of Foreign Affairs + Higher Education. Even the foreign references which are critical of Sciences Po call it an "elite institution" and a "school for Europe’s political elite". SalimJah (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: Calling it one of Europe's leading institutions is perfectly justified. Here is how other Universities describe it: "a leading social science institution for both teaching and research" (University of Pittsburgh), "leading institution in the field" (American University), "one of Europe's leading humanities institutions" (University of Sydney), "UK's and France's leading social science institutions" (LSE, referring to itself and Sciences Po), "leading research institutions in Europe" (Max Planck Institute, referring to itself and Sciences Po), "France’s leading university in the social sciences" (University of Hongkong), "leading research university in the social sciences in France" (TransSol), " leading institution in international higher education" (Japan Foundation), and dozens more such descriptions are easy to find. The 4th in QS rankings for political sciences is also entirely appropriate since it is an institution specialising in political science. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in the discussion, these sources are not acceptable. They are ads from partners university saying "look at the beautiful partner we have". Nothing neutral. You can find such praising statements for a lot of universities in their partner website. Because it’s partners, it’s even worth as a source than the website of the university itself, where they would be some self-restraint in the language. --Launebee (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * SP prestigious because it gives access to high public service, but it is not "leading" at all. At very least, it is a very partial point of view. You can see in the THE ranking: SP is not among the 27 best universities in France, nor is it listed in politics, or economics. USNews does not list it either in business. And in the French ranking institution, Eduniversal, it is not among the top 10 in Economics nor in Law. Partners ads are not sources for an encyclopedia. --Launebee (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems there is a consensus in discussions to change it. So I move to version 2 and 3 proposed. --Launebee (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya3, you add your opinion here, but this discussion is closed. SalimJah agreed this version should change (see under), so I put his new proposal in version 2. --Launebee (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You cannot close your own RfC. An uninvolved editor must close it. You can however "withdraw" your own RfC. But you must withdraw the entire RfC, not just one option. Please read and follow the guidelines at WP:RfC. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. --Launebee (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey, first sentence, version 2
Is this sentence acceptable in the lead?


 * Oppose: No independant source is saying Sciences Po is a "leading" institution, in France or Europe. Campus France has the role to promote French institutions, and is only saying it is prominent. The book link deals with reputation only, and no specific quote is given. The Cain link is not saying that at all. I’ve put a survey for Robminchin's version. The sources mentionned by Kautilya3 are obviously ads from partner universities, they don’t count at all. --Launebee (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: As above. This seems to be a more readable wording. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC), so you finally oppose this version? --Launebee (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support:I support using this phrasing. As Kautilya3 pointed out, there are actually plenty of sources describing it as ‘leading ’, plus this version is way clearer and more readable. The lead should probably also makes clear that Sciences Po is specialized in social sciences, politics etc but going with this version makes sense to me.
 * Support: Same meaning as version 1, but better wording. We agree that Sciences Po can be described as a leading European institution in the social sciences. The only question that remains to me is whether the ranking part in the second sentence belongs to the lead or the body. SalimJah (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose As a disinterested editor who came here in response to the RfC, this version does not look NPOV. If I may quote from WP:PRESTIGE: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions, but do not assert the opinions themselves. Editors should not be trying to 'sell', 'spin', or otherwise convince readers of the quality of the school. 'One of the' and 'widely recognized' are canonical weasel words: how many are among the best, what specific recognition, best on what criteria, how recent in the recognition, etc. If the statement can't stand without weasel words it lacks a neutral point of view." As it stands, the first sentence is both asserting an opinion ("…is widely recognized as a leader in…" is actually one of the examples given) and using "canonical weasel words".
 * One of the reasons for this advice is that if an article, particularly in the lead, looks non-NPOV then it reflects badly not only on Wikipedia but also on the institution concerned – if it is necessary to protest a university's greatness, then it can't really be that great. Sciences Po is one of the leading institutions of Europe, and that is precisely why the facts should be allowed to speak for themselves. Robminchin (talk) 04:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey, first sentence, version 3
Is this sentence acceptable in the lead? --Launebee (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Partial support: Agree with, but the "known for" is problematic as no source is saying so. --Launebee (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: Oppose: I prefer the earlier versions as they are succinct and go to stating the notability of the institution. The additional detail can go in the body. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC) I have been swayed by 's arguments that all the rankings need to be mentioned for WP:NPOV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Same as Kautilya3 - these sentences just sound muddled to me. The social sciences ranking should possibly be in the lead but the 'outside of the top 100… and is not included in the top 200' sentence just reads weirdly and just makes the paragraph less clear, when the lead should be succinct and to the point. I’d save it for the body of the article. Toden102 (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment This wording, or something similar, is necessary if rankings are mentioned. Giving only the QS rankings would be cherry-picking, and this clearly non-NPOV. It might be better, and would be equally acceptable, to simply avoid mentioning rankings on the lead altogether and save them (as Kautilya3 and Toden102 suggest) for the body of the article. Robminchin (talk) 04:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The lead should be about providing a crisp and accurate description of what Sciences Po is, not about listing all possible academic rankings. The global rankings actually don't make sense in this case, since Sciences Po specializes in the social sciences. SalimJah (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey, paragraph, version 4
Shall we avoid mentionning ranking, reputation and alumni in the lead? --Launebee (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support if removed together, oppose otherwise : Agree with (survey 3). If no agreement on version 3, then all mention of ranking, reputation and alumni (because removing only ranking would create a non neutral introduction about alumni and reputation) should be erased to let only neutral statements. --Launebee (talk) 08:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Partial support: I would keep the alumni sentences in there – that is factual information (although get rid of "a number"). To avoid having over-short paragraphs, it might be worth merging the alumni into the history paragraph above. Robminchin (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, Robminchin I agree on avoiding overly short paragraphs, but I’d advocate making the history paragraph in the lead longer rather to solve that rather than merging it with other bits. Toden102 (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support on rankings, otherwise oppose: I now lean towards taking the rankings out for the sake of concision.
 * However, I don’t see the rationale for taking out alumni. As Robminchin said, it’s very common practice for to mention them. Also, I think it’s particularly appropriate in Sciences Po’s case because, as both its admirers and critics assert, it’s been very heavily involved in educating France’s ruling elite throughout the country’s recent history.
 * I also think reputation should be mentioned: Neutral point of view advises ‘representing fairly, proportionately… all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.' Plenty of sources, even critical ones, present Sciences Po as particularly notable, especially in politics/social sciences (e.g.) To me, this counts as a significant view that should be represented.
 * Just to be clear, I also want this sentence or something similar to be included: ‘the institution is criticized… for creating an oligarchy of disconnected leaders’. – This is also a very common view of the grandes ecoles, and especially of the ENA and Sciences Po, which have been accused of reproducing social elites, training a ruling class prone to groupthink etc (here’s a good summary of the main criticisms )
 * I think both these qualify as ‘significant viewpoints’ and should be mentioned in the lead. Toden102 (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I already introduced this bit in the lead. Nobody opposes it so far. This is a common criticism of the grandes écoles system (which Sciences Po is actively trying to fight BTW, we should mention its efforts trying to broaden its recruitment base in the body), and a natural counterpoint to their selectivity and reputation. SalimJah (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * SalimJah sorry, should have made clearer I was quoting the bit you added in the current lead. Should have said 'I support this remaining in the lead' :) Toden102 (talk) 10:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You certainly make a good argument for the inclusion of something on the views that Sciences Po is particularly notable. My issue with "leading" is that it is a decidedly positive term. I wonder if something along the lines of "one of the most influential institutions in France", which leaves it (in my reading, at least) more open as to whether this is positive, would better capture the positive and negative aspects, particularly paired with the sentence on criticism. Robminchin (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No source is saying "one of the most influential institutions in France" or "leading". They just say it’s a place to get into the political elite. --Launebee (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * provided quotes above of sources saying "leading"; "influential" was my attempt to find a more neutral synonym. It is not necessary to use the exact same words as a source, best practice is to summarise what they say using your own words – as leading requires influence, this usage seemed reasonable to me (most influential was possibly overstating it though). Given that there is a general consensus to include some kind of statement about SP's standing, we should work on finding a neutral statement. Robminchin (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources given by Kautilya3 are not acceptable. They are ads from partners university saying "look at the beautiful partner we have". Nothing neutral. You can find such praising statements for a lot of universities in their partner website. Because it’s partners, it’s even worth as a source than the website of the university itself, where they would be some self-restraint in the language. --Launebee (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact SP would be a leading institution in France is absolutely false. It is prestigious because it gives access to high public service, but it is not "leading" at all. At very least, it is a very partial point of view. You can see in the THE ranking: SP is not among the 27 best universities in France, nor is it listed in politics, or economics. USNews does not list it either in business. And in the French ranking institution, Eduniversal, it is not among the top 10 in Economics nor in Law. Partners ads are not sources for an encyclopedia. --Launebee (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Launebee ‘absolutely false’ is a very strong claim and I don’t think it’s fair to draw that conclusion on the basis of the links you’ve posted.
 * The two rankings from Eduniversal are for bachelor’s degrees in law and economics - Sciences Po doesn’t offer either of those courses so of course it wouldn’t feature in those rankings.
 * THE's methodology is known for attaching more weight to ‘hard sciences’ - those rankings fit that pattern, since basically all the schools there are either known for STEM subjects (ENS, Polytechnique, UPMC, Paris Sud, Descartes, Mines, CentraleSupélec, Ecole Centrale de Lyon etc) or else they’re massive public universities like Aix-Marseille, Strasbourg, Montpellier, which have big science departments. Not saying THE rankings shouldn’t be in the article, just that in the case of Sciences Po I think they’re less helpful for forming an overall impression.
 * I’m less familiar with the US News ranking, but that ranking is focused on business courses, which isn’t something Sciences Po is known for anyway Toden102 (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Top universities partner with other top universities, and while they may have a vested interest in saying that their partners are also top universities, they wouldn't be partnering with them if the statement wasn't true. I don't think it is possible to dismiss these sources as irredeemably biased. Also see WP:NEUTRALSOURCE: sources don't have to be neutral (and possibly never are). Furthermore, the criticism advanced against SP is that its influence is bad – nobody seems to be arguing that it doesn't have influence.
 * On rankings, it is worth noting that the London School of Economics is ranked 23rd overall by THE and 37th by QS, which would seem to contradict the assertion that THE treats social sciences specialist institutions worse than QS. US News isn't quite as bad as ARWU, but it still contains an explicit bias towards larger institutions (40% of the weighting is on indicators uncorrected for institution size, compared to 100% for ARWU) so is measuring a mixture of quantity and quality. Robminchin (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * "Top university" is a point of view isn’t it? The critics are not saying it has a bad influence, but it gives a bad education to influential people, it’s not the same. And no source is saying so in this way. Brochures from universities are not reliable sources. In this case, to me, the fact they say it is "leading" even though no ranking is comforting it show that it is ad. --Launebee (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Looking around, even if those sources are considered to have a conflict of interest (which is not the same as being unreliable), there are other sources identifying Science Po as "elite" or "prestigious" from reliable news organisations.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/liberte-inegalite-fraternite-is-french-elitism-holding-the-country-back-8621650.html] . "Influential" is, particularly coupled with the sentence on criticism, a neutral way of expressing this as we want to avoid using "elite", "prestigious" or "leading". If you think there is dispute over whether Sciences Po is influential, please post some reliable sources saying that. Robminchin (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (I've deleted the topuniversities.com reference above as, on re-reading, it is clearly copy provided by the university (it refers to 'our student body').) Robminchin (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * OK for The Independant saying it is considered as an elite institution, I can agree with that. --Launebee (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support on rankings, otherwise oppose: Version 2 above is concise and accurate NPOV. We can certainly take the QS ranking out so that all rankings are reported together in the corresponding body section, but the rest (alumni and reputation bits) definitely belong there. SalimJah (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - If I under this proposal correctly, it is proposing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Anybody reading an article on an academic institution wants to know its relative standing in its field. This proposal is a non-starter for me. Perhaps a separate discussion should be started on what aspects of its standing should be covered, and this RfC was possibly premature. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey, paragraph, version 5
Should it replace the paragraph currently dealing with ranking, alumni and reputation? --Launebee (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support: Hope this version will find a consensus. Neutral wording of rankings, no cherry-picking of the best one. Nothing about reputation, good or bad, since it seems impossible to have a neutral wording on that. Alumni neutrality worded (if the numbers are correct). --Launebee (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: As said elsewhere on the page, reputation ought to be in the lead, in line with Neutral point of view which recommends that we mention“all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.”I disagree that it’s impossible to find neutral wording :) Toden102 (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey, paragraph, version 6
A further attempt at a consensus text, trying to draw on what everyone has said. No rankings, an attempt at a balanced reputation statement, and the alumni. (Some refs need to be filled out properly, but this should do for here) Robminchin (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Thank you for proposing solutions. I agree with the first part to France, but not on how the criticism is presented. Sciences Po is critized in itself, not with other Grandes Écoles, and I disagree with the word "leader", unduly positive, we should talk more about "oligarchy" like in the independent article. Moreover, if we talk about reputation, we should talk about the financial and political scandals. --Launebee (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support with comments: This definitely goes in the right direction. A few comments: 1) There's only one occurrence of the word "oligarchy" in the Independent article, and it's in reference to the Chinese political system. 2) The criticism needs to be put in the broader context of the French grandes écoles system. The first source on criticism is about Sciences Po and ENA. The Independent article discusses the grandes écoles system in general (refers primarily to ENA, but also Sciences Po, Polytechnique, HEC...). So the proposal is properly informative. 3) I don't like the "although" in the first sentence. This reads as if the "influence" and "technocracy" parts were directly related, which needs not be the case. I'd separate those statements in two distinct sentences, preserving the balance. 4) We've discussed evidence that, at the scale of the French social and political sciences world, Sciences Po is more than "one" influential institution. "Highly" influential, or something or that sort, would see like more in line with its disproportionate representation in politics, media, government and policy. I agree that we need to use neutral language, but I also don't want us to overdo it in the other direction. What do people think? 5) We need a reference for the 6/40 largest companies CEOs. Does anybody have that? SalimJah (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems to me that the scandals are now historical – unless SP is currently embroiled in a scandal, this has no place in the lead. I would agree with SalimJah that the criticism seems, on the whole, to be in the context of the grandes écoles system. However, I do feel that the criticism is directly linked to the influence – if SP alumni weren't moving into positions of power, nobody would be concerned. "Highly influential" would seem acceptable to me if there is a consensus for that. The 6/40 is taken from the body text, but the alumni section isn't well referenced generally (SP is far from unique in this); the claim should also be dated as CEOs of to companies terms to move around. Robminchin (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is Sciences Po that is directly critised, not the Grandes écoles in general. Le Monde (not column or blog), France Inter, Sciences Po for Dummies, Richard Descoings himself are talking about a the "common idea" of Sciences Po being "Sciences Pipeau" (pronounced "Pipo"), and Pipeau means "fake", it is about Sciences Po in particular. --Launebee (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking over the articles cited and references therein, I see an article about a book criticising the Grandes Ecoles generally, with some concentration on ENA but drawing in SP, an article criticising SP and ENA but concentrating on SP, an article criticising SP and am article about a book criticising ENA. To say that only SP is being criticised would be a misrepresentation of the balance of the articles. That SP has a handy nickname is neither here nor there, and that Descoings and a book about SP talked about it is hardly surprising but doesn't really tell us anything. Robminchin (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand, but the kind of criticism it faces are different than the ones of the other ones. In the same time, it’s ok if you think these should not be included. Regarding the scandals, the events are very recent and nothing has been done to reform the institution regarding those financial issues. Last year again, the Cour des comptes, very important institution in France, denounced again financial operations of Sciences Po (including the hôtel de l'Artillerie one, ongoing and which has been said illegal): https://www.lesechos.fr/politique-societe/societe/021686598290-la-cour-des-comptes-met-en-doute-le-modele-economique-de-sciences-po-1199195.php, the financial scandals are not finished, they are ongoing. However, I changed a little bit the proposal 7. All of that is very special to Sciences Po, it is very noticeable and should be included in the lead. I am strongly opposed to the changes proposed by the other ones. And I think the rankings should be included if we talk about reputation. --Launebee (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: There’s a lot of context missing here.
 * 1)It's true that the opinion of the Cours des Comptes is very important in France. However, it ought to be pointed out that it’s investigated a lot of institutions in recent years: in 2012 (same time they were reporting on SP) they criticized 22 different business schools for poor management, discrimination etc. ; in 2013 they criticized Versailles University for financial mismanagement ; this March they criticized the IEPs of Bordeaux, Grenoble and Aix for mismanagement and had very harsh words for France Business School, which had to close down . This year they also criticized the Paris-Saclay federation for poor management of 5 billion euros of public money . I’m not claiming that SP’s scandals are insignificant, but this context is mainly why I’m skeptical about presenting them in the lead as something uniquely notable.
 * 2)The Cour des Comptes reported on management reforms at SP last year, and had both praises and criticisms . SP can be critiqued it on the effectiveness of its reforms, but it’s surely not the case that‘nothing has been done to reform the institution’.
 * 3)It’s true that there was controversy regarding SP’s purchase of hotel de l’artillerie last year but that’s separate from the 2012 scandals relating to Richard Descoings’ leadership. Surely the place to mention it is the main article rather than the lead. Toden102 (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support with comment: It is a good effort. The only amendment I would suggest is to split off the "although" clause and put it at the end. I generally recommend positive first and negative later, so that we don't appear to be grinding an axe. (I like the phrasing "technocracy of disconnected leaders", and the proposed alternative of "oligarchy of blinkered whatever" is definitely not neutral.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support with some alterations: Definitely moving in the right direction! A few comments:
 * 1) I’d change ‘it is criticized for creating’ to ‘critics have accused it of creating’ – this sounds more neutral to me as it presents the criticisms more plainly as a particular viewpoint.
 * 2) As said, SP has been very heavily involved in educating France’s governing elite throughout the country’s recent history, which to me seems the main reason it’s both admired and criticized. I agree with SalimJah that ‘highly influential’ is appropriate. I also think it would be appropriate to change ‘influential in the social and political sciences in France’ to ‘influential in French politics and society.’ This would also make the next sentence about creating a technocracy sound more obviously related.
 * 3) On the 'although' bit: I agree with Robminchin that the ‘influence’ and ‘criticsm’ bits are surely linked. However, I’d split it into separate sentences just because personally I think it sounds better that way: “…considered to be a highly influential academic institution in French politics and society. However, critics have accused it of creating…”
 * 4) Personally, I’d put the alumni at the beginning of the paragraph, followed by the sentence/s on reputation. That’s just a minor thing though! Toden102 (talk) 07:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support as the best version on this page at the time of this post. It needs more explication of precisely what its specialization in the social sciences amounts to, which is almost certainly a matter of going deeper and briefly explaining it, as opposed to just throwing in a bunch of rankings. Throwing in a bunch of rankings is never an optimal idea, but it's particularly useless here, since the different ones are so wildly divergent that anyone who doesn't already know what Sciences Po is will leave actively confused. Advocata (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Let me make an attempt at summarizing what has been said so far in a revised version of Robminchin's text. What about:

In any case, the piece needs to be referenced in a better way. I've already mentioned that with respect to the 6/40 largest companies CEOs (if we can find a supporting reference, this is definitely worth mentioning here), but it also applies to references 4 and 5 above. I don't see how they relate to the points made here. One is about Dominique Strauss Kahn's career, the other is about the Front National recently managing to be formally represented among Sciences Po students... Any media geek around here to help us with this referencing task? :) SalimJah (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I totally oppose to this version, obviously not neutrally worded. --Launebee (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Launebee, could you be more specific? What in particular do you feel isn’t neutrally worded?
 * SalimJah, I quite like this structure. I agree that better sources may be available, especially on CEOs. I’d also mention heads of intl organizations as I think that’s at least as significant, and I’d expand the final sentence for clarity. I’ll write a new proposal based on this one and put it below as ‘Version 8’. Toden102 (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See my comments in version 8. --Launebee (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey, paragraph, version 7
Oppose: There seems to be a consensus that the lead will be clearer if we leave out the rankings. Toden102 (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Support: I don’t think there is a consensus on that. This version is the most neutral. --Launebee (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey, paragraph, version 8
For the last paragraph of the lead, how would this be? I've slightly expanded both the alumni bit and the sentence on criticisms. As SalimJah said, better sources may be available; however, I’ve used the same sources as Version 6 for now. Toden102 (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support This seems a good summary of the consensus position. Note: there were a couple of improperly-separated references, carried over from a formatting error I made earlier - I have corrected these here. Some of the references may not seem on-topic at first, but have relevant notes about SP, e.g. DSK "Attended Paris’ prestigious Institut d'études politiques de Paris – or Science Po – a breeding ground for the French elite" - it would be good to draw this out by quoting the relevant part inside the ref tags. Robminchin (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

--Launebee (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose:
 * No reference for "Highly influencial", clear POV.
 * "Many" is POV.
 * "seven of the last eight French presidents" is not factual, as stated under.
 * "CEOs of France's 40 largest companies" is not neutraly worded. A internal link to the CAC40 is sufficient.
 * "Some observers" is not accurate, lots of reference regarding a lot of people.
 * "leaders" is not neutrally worded. It is public servants.
 * "out-of-touch": not neutral, and not accurate.
 * The critics should go with the praise.
 * Give the same amount of sources for the critics and the praise.
 * "Highly influential" is a summary of the many references referring to it as leading, prestigious or elite, recast into more neutral language.
 * "Many" is a simple descriptive term; there is no reasonable PoV that would consider the around 200 notable people at List of Sciences Po people anything other than "many".
 * I noted that "seven of the last eight French presidents" was inconsistent with what was stated in the text. The text has since been updated and it is now consistent. Your statement that I said this was not factual is incorrect.
 * Why is "CEOs of France's 40 largest companies" not neutrally worded? It seems like a plain statement of fact to me.
 * "some observers" means more than none and less than all. That seems accurate to me.
 * "leaders" is used in the Independent article cited: "In the name of “meritocracy” and “equality”, he says, France has built a system for selecting and formatting its political, administrative and business leaders which makes “Eton and Oxbridge” or the “Ivy League” look like a utopian experiment in social levelling." The criticism is referring to more than simply public servants.
 * "out-of-touch" is from "déconnectées" in the Contrepoints article cited
 * As you know, I supported linking the statement on its status with the criticism, but the consensus from the discussion above was to put the criticism at the end.
 * If you want to suggest other citations, then feel free to do so.
 * Robminchin (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the mistake then. There are still the other issues. The sentence about the alumni is too long. I propose the version 7. --Launebee (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support This appropriately reflects the current consensus. I'm only concerned about the change from "disconnected" to "out of touch" in this last proposal. The latter implies a lack of relevant or up-to-date knowledge / information. This suggests a statement about the nature of the education provided, while the relevant disconnect in this paragraph seems to be more of a social one, i.e., the criticism is more about the social reproduction which perpetuates the said "oligarchy" through admission in those "elitist" schools. SalimJah (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree with Robminchin’s comments.
 * SalimJah, personally I though 'out-of-touch' sounded better than ‘disconnected’, and I didn’t feel it changed the meaning in any substantial way. However, it’s a minor thing and I’m happy to concede and change it back if other editors agree :)
 * and, please comment on this version if possible. Toden102 (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer "out of touch" - this is commonly used in English to describe politicians (and others) who are seen as not having (or having lost) contact with the people - try a google news search for "out of touch", this is mainly about politicians but includes (in my results just now) an article about "out of touch" tech companies. Usage to imply being out of date doesn't seem to be common. Robminchin (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Does nobody here actually understand what a "technocracy" is? A technocracy is most commonly used to refer to a system in which there are no elected officials and where decision-makers are scientists, engineers, or experts in technical/technological fields. "Technocracy is a system of governance where decision-makers are selected on the basis of technological knowledge. Scientists, engineers, technologists, or experts in any field, would compose the governing body, instead of elected representatives." We're on Wikipedia--has no one actually bothered to look any of this up? Ravenclaw0127 (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Technocracy according to the Oxford English Dictionary:

"1. The government or control of society or industry by an elite of technical experts. ‘failure in the war on poverty discredited technocracy’

1.1 An instance or application of technocracy.

1.2 An elite of technical experts."


 * Your definition is inconsistent with English usage as documented by the OED, which has no implication of a lack of elected officials - Wikipedia should not be used as a source.
 * The Independent article cited above says:

"“The system turns out people who are brilliant at writing long, beautifully argued reports on what should or should not be done,” Mr Gumbel told The Independent. “It is hopeless at training people who know how to make things happen. Hence, many of the problems of France today.”"


 * The use of "technocracy" to describe a system where society is dominated by an elite who are technically brilliant but don't know how to make things actually happen is entirely in keeping with its normal English usage as supported by reliable sources. This usage can also be seen in, for example, the description of Emmanuel Macron as "a technocratic former investment banker" . Robminchin (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The introduction claims that Sciences Po has been criticized by individuals for creating a technocracy. the word "technocracy" is never even mentioned once in either of the articles that are cited. France has been criticized for creating a group of detached, elitist leaders (this is supported by the articles and many other sources--I would accept this). A technocracy, though? This is absolutely a stretch and does not belong in the introduction. If you manage to find an article claiming this, I wouldn't accept that to be a mainstream criticism of Sciences Po. If anything, Sciences Po has been criticized for being a breeding ground for elite leaders instead of being a center for technically rigorous scholarly activity. So tell me how in the world Sciences Po has created a technocracy in France. Also, you've cited one instance in which some writer on Slate referred to Macron as a technocratic investment banker. Its use to refer to Macron's former investment banking experience is a bit of a stretch, but reasonable and acceptable (knowledge in finance/banking). But the introduction is saying something completely different here. Trying to claim that Sciences Po, along with other elite schools, have created a technocracy in France is a claim of incomparable magnitude. It's ultimately a leap and an opinion.

Ravenclaw0127 (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The word "technocracy" does not have to be used in an article for it to be used here if it is a summary of what the article is saying, and I have already pointed out that The Independent criticises the grandes ecoles for creating a technically proficient but ineffective elite and that this elite dominates French society, and that this meets the OED definition of a technocracy. More explicit is academic Vivien A. Schmidt (formerly a visiting professor at Science Po): "The most enduring legacy of the postwar Model has been the perpetuation of a technocratic elite at the heart of the French State." . Here she is saying, explicitly, that they have created a technocracy in France. That this is a critical opinion is flagged explicitly in the text, which is perfectly in keeping with how Wikipedia works.
 * However, I have no particular attachment to the use of "technocracy", even though it is correct. I would be quite happy with "Some observers have criticized the pervasiveness of Sciences Po graduates in public life, accusing it, together with other prominent grandes écoles, of creating an out-of-touch elite", or something similar, if this is the consensus of other editors. Robminchin (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a stretch. I could see how this could be included in the body of the text, but this is, at the end of the day, another individual's opinion that is inappropriate for the introduction of an article. I want to remind you that using the term "technocracy" is a a pretty strong way of characterizing any political system of a state, and that there is no need for the usage of this term when there are plenty of more neutral and less debatable ways of conveying the notion that Sciences Po has produced out-of-touch, elite leaders.

Let's imagine that you were able to meet some members of the French public, and that you could ask them if they thought France was a technocracy. I would wager that the vast majority of people would say: "I suppose that's debatable." Could there be some individuals that actually believe that France is now controlled by technical experts, or that power wielded by elected representatives has now become illusory or practically obsolete as a result? Perhaps. But there is no evidence to suggest that this is a widely held view or that this is a mainstream criticism leveled against Sciences Po and other grandes ecoles. And this particular criticism has not been substantiated sufficiently by the cited sources to warrant its mention in the introduction of the article. I want to emphasize that the content in the introduction is not suited for potentially contentious views or claims, and that, generally, we should gravitate towards claims that have garnered consensus.

Your suggestion, I think, is appropriate, and one that would gain the consensus of other editors. Ravenclaw0127 (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Consensus on Survey, paragraph, version 8
It seems that we're close to reaching a consensus on the above proposal. I see two minor point which we'd need to address:

1) It's true that the alumni list has gotten a bit lengthy. What about (same thing, shortened): "Alumni include many notable public figures, including seven of the last eight French presidents, 12 foreign heads of state or government, heads of international organizations (e.g., UN, WTO, IMF and ECB), and six of the CEOs of France's 40 largest companies."?

2) Use of the word "technocracy" to describe Sciences Po (and other grande écoles) graduates. I agree with Robminchin that this is an appropriate use of the term. If other editors support the idea of trying to find another formulation, what about: "...accusing it, together with other prominent grandes écoles, of perpetuating an out-of-touch ruling class."? SalimJah (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Fair enough, reading it again it does seem a bit long! I would say ‘international organizations including the UN, WTO, IMF and ECB’ – personally I think ‘including’ sounds better than ‘e.g.’
 * 2) Likewise, I don’t see a particular problem with the word ‘technocracy’ but equally I’m happy to change the phrasing. I support SalimJah ’s proposed wording. Toden102 (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) I think saying "e.g." is somewhat awkward; I agree with Toden10. Let's say "including" instead.
 * 2) SalimJah's phrasing is an improvement, but I think it would be better to say: "....criticizing it, along with other prominent grandes ecoles, of perpetuating an out-of-touch group of leaders." The word "accusing" has a different connotation from the word "criticizing," and I think the latter would be appropriate. Also, the phrase "ruling class" is somewhat awkward here. A "group of leaders" would be better. Finally, I must insist on avoiding stronger terms like "technocracy," which may be a needlessly contentious term for the introduction of an article, which should generally gravitate towards claims that have gained general and wide-ranging consensus. Ravenclaw0127 (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We need to be careful not to imply that the criticism is accepted as factual: "criticising it ... for perpetuating X" would mean it is definitely perpetuating X and has been criticised for this, conversely, "accusing it ... of perpetuating X" means that the critics are claiming it is perpetuating X. I do agree that "accusing" is rather strong, possibly "claiming" would be better. To my ears, "group of leaders" seems a rather odd phrasing.
 * How about (with some other re-arranging): "Some critics have claimed, however, that it, together with other prominent grandes écoles, is perpetuating an out-of-touch elite in French public life."? Robminchin (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Robminchin's phrasing is appropriate. I would perhaps replace the phrase "French public life" to something more simple like "French society" or something close to that, but other than that, I think the phrasing is good. Ravenclaw0127 (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for those useful comments @Ravenclaw0127 @Toden102 @Robminchin @Kautilya3. Based on the above, I'd suggest the following wording:


 * "Sciences Po is considered to be a highly influential academic institution in the social and political sciences in France. Alumni include many notable public figures, including seven of the last eight French presidents, 12 foreign heads of state or government, heads of international organizations (including the UN, WTO, IMF and ECB), and six of the CEOs of France's 40 largest companies. Some observers have criticized the pervasiveness of the school's graduates in French society, claiming that Sciences Po, together with other prominent grandes écoles, is perpetuating a technocracy of out-of-touch leaders."


 * This version should appropriately reflect the various points raised above. Note that it retains the word 'technocracy', as everybody expressed support for it (apart from Ravenclaw0127). We could still change this bit to "is perpetuating an an out-of-touch elite" or "is perpetuating an out-of-touch ruling class". Those options are okay, even though the "technocracy" version is more precise to my mind. SalimJah (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks SalimJah ! I'm happy with this phrasing. I also feel ‘technocracy’ gets the point across most effectively, but if others want to change that word then I’m not too bothered. Toden102 (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
It is necessary that whatever is put in the lead has full regard for Neutral point of view - "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". It appears to me that mentioning a single, highly favourable, ranking does not meet this criterion. I would suggest, as an alternative:

This summarises the relevant global rankings (note that it's not possible to tell if ARWU ranks Sciences Po outside of the top 200 or if it simply doesn't include it) and places the subject ranking in context. To me, this would seem to come closer to neutrality. Robminchin (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * This seems fair enough to me! On putting ranking in the lead, I’d agree that the most neutral way would be to either mention a few rankings or none at all. According to this site the QS rankings put it at #220 overall, #44 in sociology, #62 in social sciences and #4 in politics. When I googled just now it appeared to be unranked by ARWU and THE – tell me if otherwise! Personally I'd be ok with all that being  mentioned. Toden102 (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree, but worry that this might be a lot of rankings related info for an article lead which should remain concise and to the point. What about:


 * Then we could use the rest of your above text to update the "rankings" section? My sense is that any more detailed info belongs there as opposed to the article lead. SalimJah (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Another way to go would be to drop all rankings from the lead. Keep them all for the "rankings" section. SalimJah (talk) 11:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * SalimJah thanks for your reply, and I can see your point of view. However, I'd remind you of the guideline quoted previously by Robminchin - I suspect that quoting just one ranking, even for the sake of brevity, might not be compatible with guidelines on editorial bias etc.
 * I guess you could make the argument that Sciences Po is especially known as a place that has educated numerous politicians, diplomats, civil servants etc and, due to that political focus, the politics subject-ranking should feature prominently? I'm not sure though - I'd want to know a) if it's common practice on other university pages to include only one or two rankings and b) if there are admins who'd consider it compatible with guidelines. Toden102 (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that the statement 'one of France's leading academic institutions’ is what should be in the lead. I think this is a common view of Sciences Po and that there are actually loads of sources to support it. As a reference I’d go with chapter 2 of this source plus possibly this source.
 * @SalimJah Regarding the statement ‘one of the leading institutions in Europe’ - for now I’m not convinced. It’s quite possibly true on many metrics (e.g. extremely prominent alumni, rankings, partnerships with places like Oxford, LSE, Columbia, etc) yet it’s also true that 'leading institution in Europe' isn't what the sources seem to be saying explicitly. As I noticed  DGG said elsewhere on the talk page - it doesn't necessarily need to be said, since instead of talking about a university's standing in explicit terms it can be more effective to let the facts speak for themselves :) Toden102 (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's worth reading the guidance at WP:PRESTIGE. In a nutshell, it is almost always better to follow a policy of "show, don't tell" when it comes to whether a particular institution is "leading", "prestigious", "elite", etc., particularly as such statements are always, by their very nature, opinions target than facts. With that in mind, I would suggest reordering the paragraph to start with the sentence describing the alumni. Having said that "seven of the last eight French presidents, 12 foreign heads of state or government, a former United Nations Secretary-General, and a number of CEOs of France's 40 largest companies" attended Sciences Po, there is no need to then state explicitly that it is prestigious – the facts speak for themselves.
 * With respect to rankings, if any are to be mentioned then my feeling is that balance requires sufficient detail for a reader to see how three institution is ranked generally. I don't feel the overall ranking is particularly useful for a specialised institution such as Sciences Po, but the social sciences faculty rankings are. Alternatively, the rankings could be omitted altogether.
 * With all of this in mind, I suggest the following for the whole paragraph:


 * If not wanted, the last two sentences, where the rankings are described, could be left of. Robminchin (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would also note that "a number of CEOs of France's 40 largest companies" is a very weak statement that doesn't really help advertise Sciences Po's status. My thoughts on seeing a statement like that are that the "number" must be fairly low! Giving the actual number (six according to the alumni section) would be better. Robminchin (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Launebee I don’t accept your argument regarding the book link (ch2 here ). It’s true the exact wording ‘leading institution’ doesn’t feature, but the chapter explicitly describes Sciences Po as one of France’s four most well-regarded ‘great schools’ (along with ENS, HEC and Polytechnique) and discusses how these institutions have a particular aura rooted in their history, selectivity etc. It strikes me as simply pedantic to argue that this that removed from the statement that it’s ‘one of France’s leading academic institutions’. Toden102 (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You say yourself "regarded", so only reputation, not a fact. And it’s a reputation among great schools, not in general in France among academic institutions. --Launebee (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, the source wasn’t dealing with objective fact, but the point is that it sums up a particular view of Sciences Po that is found in various other sources.
 * On your other point: both admirers and critics of the great schools tend to regard them as among the most dominant academic institutions in French higher education I don’t see how this reputation could somehow apply ‘only’ to grandes ecoles and not to the academic institutions in general. Toden102 (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The sources mentionned by Kautilya3 are obviously ads from partner universities, they don’t count at all. I added a new survey following proposition. --Launebee (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

To give a bit more background to my partial support above for the option in Survey 4, it seems to me that rankings fall in a different category from alumni. Rankings are opinions based on analysis of data, there are differing opinions on how universities are ranked. While it is a fact that a certain opinion on how a university ranks is held by, e.g., QS, it is still necessary for balance to state all of the significant opinions (e.g. THE and ARWU) or to leave out any statement about rankings entirely. Alumni, on the other hand, are facts. It is not a matter of opinion whether "seven of the last eight French presidents" attended Sciences Po. As facts, these have a much stronger claim to be mentioned in the lead than any opinion: indeed WP:PRESTIGE actually recommends the inclusion of notable alumni in university articles as an example of the sort of neutral, verifiable fact that Wikipedia should contain. If the notable alumni lead a reader to decide that an institution is prestigious, then the reader has decided that - not the editor. That is precisely what we are aiming for with Wikipedia: presenting facts and letting the reader decide what they mean. Robminchin (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * All rankings are not the same. They are not necessarily based on opinions. Most rankings combine opinions and objective data. Some rankings favour large multi-disciplinary institutions whereas some don't. Some emphasize quantity and others don't. We should really be discusssing what rankings are appropriate for a small specialised institution like Sciences Po, and include those, irrespective of whether it ranks high or low among them.
 * QS ranking is pretty good. It used to be the original agency that did the ranking for the Times Higher Education (THE) and then it branched out on its own. It measures teaching as well as research, alumni reputation as well as academic peer reputation. So it is a balanced ranking. While the main University ranking table favours the larger institutions, the subjct tables can bring out the specialist institutions. Since Sciences Po is a small specialist institution, it is the subject tables that are relevant for it. Political Sciences being the home subject of Sciences Po, its ranking there should be definitely included. I am willing to consider arguments for why the Social Sciences table might also be appropriate. After THE switched to Thomson-Reuters, the first ranking they produced was quite weird (because of some funny statistical weighting formula they came up with but nobody could understand). They supposedly fixed it later, but they still do some non-standard things. As for ARWU, our article says in the lead itself that it undermines humanities and teaching focus. So, I don't see why it should be mentioned at all in the lead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Those are convincing arguments, Kautilya3. So, back to version 2 above? If that sounds good, we can change the word "leading" to "most influential" in order to address Robminchin's point that the former has too much of a laudable connotation. Would that also suit you, Toden102? We can also include one well chosen social sciences rankings together with the politics and international relations one, in order to appropriately reflect Sciences Po's specialized academic focus. Does that seem like a plan? SalimJah (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that not all rankings are the same, but all rankings are subjective combinations of objective data and thus are all opinion. Both QS and THE have their methodology audited for statistical validity. I would disagree that there is such a thing as "non-standard" when it comes to ranking universities internationally, because everyone does it differently. It's not possible to say that QS or THE or whatever other ranking is 'better' than another and so should be the one used - as with all occasions where differing experts have differing opinions, all should be stated. Sciences Po is (according to QS) a medium-sized (not small) institution that has courses in both the social sciences and humanities. As such, picking out just the social sciences is already a stretch but recognises that this is where it is concentrated. Giving only the subject ranking for politics would be cherry-picking unless most of the students at Sciences Po are studying politics - giving that it has seven subjects ranked by QS, this seems unlikely. The social sciences faculty-level ranking is far more relevant.
 * All of the global rankings are research-focused and have problems with arts and humanities (due to the predominant publication mode being books rather than papers, which are not captured by bibliometrics). If you object to this, you should support excluding all rankings from the lead here. It has generally been agreed that QS, THE and ARWU are the most influential rankings globally, and so are the three that are normally given. All can be criticised - ARWU doesn't correct for institutional size, while THE and QS use surveys of reputation that are of dubious validity - but all have their defenders. Using just one of them means that we, as editors, are making a choice as to which is valid (personally, I would toss ARWU), when we should be leaving it up to the reader to make that decision. Any reader who is interested can click through to the articles on QS, THE and ARWU and work out for themself which they want to trust. Our job as editors is to give the reader the information and let them make their mind up. To quote (yet again) WP:PRESTIGE: "Rankings should be neutrally worded without modifiers or disclaimers. Similarly, do not exclude notable rankings simply because they are inconveniently low or you disagree with their methodology. An article about a university is not the appropriate venue to debate the merits of various rankings' respective methodologies. If a reader wants to know about the methodology, they can follow the citation that should already accompany any ranking or the wikilink to the Wikipedia article describing that ranking in more detail."
 * This is the accepted community standard for reaching a neutral point of view. Giving just one ranking will make this article non-NPOV. Robminchin (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * SalimJah I see where you’re coming from but I’m still not quite convinced: I lean more towards Robminchin's position as expressed above. Do you or Kautilya3 know of precedents from other university pages where it’s been deemed acceptable to include particular rankings while leaving out others? Or guidelines other than the ones currently cited that suggest it’s ok? If so then I’d consider changing my position.
 * ‘One of the most France’s most influential academic institutions’ sounds reasonable to me. What I think the last part of the lead ought to convey is that SP has a particularly noteworthy reputation, as it’s educated such a large share of significant people in politics, government, diplomacy etc throughout France’s recent history (for better and for worse). A sentence or two to express that, paired with the sentence on criticism is what is needed in my view Toden102 (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have never worked on any academic institution articles before, but I have been looking at some of them since this discussion started. London School of Economics is perhaps the closest to Sciences Po in terms of specialisation, and it does mention all the rankings. I agree that trying to figure out which rankings are the most appropriate for Sciences Po would be too much WP:OR. Let us leave it to the readers. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In the interest of full disclosure, I'm at least partly responsible for LSE mentioning all the rankings so this isn't a completely independent example. Robminchin (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Don’t you think putting alumni summary in the lead is original research? --Launebee (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not if it is summarising what is in the body of the article. I am a bit concerned here that the text says "the last five French presidents" while the lead says "seven of the last eight French presidents" – this needs to be rectified, but doesn't affect the general principle. If five presidents of France are listed as alumni in the article, saying "Sciences Po counts 5 presidents of France among its alumni" would not be OR as this is basic arithmetic, which is specifically allowed under WP:NOR: "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations." Robminchin (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out that discrepancy, altered it in the article. Toden102 (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

For the purpose of finding a neutral wording in the lead, since there is a disagreement on some sections but not available in what I consider more neutral wording, I give them here for information:

I give you also the former version of the criticism part (which needed to be worked on this time, it was done but with a lot of non neutral rewording) :

--Launebee (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Major edit made without consensus on either way
as the page is protected could you or another admin revert this edit please? It was made without consulting the talk page and there are some serious problems with it. These sections of the article were amended a while ago as they contained a lot of odd phrasing, grammatical errors, undue weight given to obscure sources and also sources presented in a very partial way (thorough discussion of the issues here and here). However, a lot of confusing and misleading content has now been re-inserted without any change in the consensus. Thanks! Toden102 (talk) 11:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that another admin look at it. I can't be the only one dealing with this. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I just put back sources which were deleted without consensus. The discussion Toden is talking about never ended up on a consensus. Mind the fact most of the wording by Toden has been kept. If you want to correct something, please tell us what. --Launebee (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note also that CambridgeBayWeather has been part of the content dispute so cannot act as an admin here. --Launebee (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather - thanks, I understand. If more admins need to get involved will you ask them to comment or should I do it? In any case, the discussion has now been re-opened (I described the discussion as having reached consensus as opposing views were not offered at the time) Toden102 (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * To revert it back to another version you could ask an admin for a second opinion. Also you should follow the steps at WP:Dispute resolution. And Launebee protecting the page does not count as being involved in the dispute. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, it does not count as such. But you were involved before in the dispute regarding the content of this page.
 * There was no consensus, and I raised my opposition views at the time. I just explained more now. And the discussion was not on all the elements Toden wants admins to decide on.
 * --Launebee (talk) 09:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just wondering what happened to Sciences Po's #4 ranking in the QS World University Rankings by Subject 2016 - Politics & International Studies. Why was this deleted from the entire Wiki? Seems bizarre. Also, it looks like the consensus about Sciences Po's campus was also deleted and replaced with something else. Ah, I see now Launebee is back ruining the Sciences Po wiki, once again. Such a shame she wastes everyone's time with her pet project.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.148.37 (talk) 05:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Use of sources etc. in the 'Financial Scandals' section
Hi again! I had look at some of the sources for the ‘financial scandals’ section. I think it needs a re-write as currently it contains a lot of odd phrasing, grammatical errors and sources presented in a very partial way. I wanted to highlight these bits as especially problematic:


 * The following line: ‘it has been found that an inspector of the French Court of Audit, in charge of investigating the financial behaviour of Sciences Po, was in the same time employed by Sciences Po.’
 * A really important detail has been omitted: the conflict of interest was resolved because the inspector in question, Jean Picq (who had also been a visiting professor at Sciences Po), agreed that he wouldn’t participate in the Court's deliberations concerning Sciences Po. The source is a Mediapart article and the author also notes that there’s no evidence Picq behaved in a compromising way (‘Rien ne prouve aujourd’hui que Jean Picq... a commis une faute et agi contre l’intérêt de la Cour’). To be honest, when I read the source it seemed like a bit of a non-story since the problem was quickly resolved, and in fact it looks like none of the big French news sites bothered reporting it – surely needs to be presented in a more balanced way?


 * It’s stated that the Court of Audit “denounced” Sciences Po for “the tax evasions” but this appears to be unsourced as there’s no mention of tax evasion at all in the source referenced . The allegations seemed to mainly be to do with opaque remuneration procedures for staff, extravagant expenses claims, excessive salary for the director etc. However, there’s no mention of tax evasion.


 * The last sentence asserts ‘The Court of Financial and Budgetary Discipline eventually found Casanova guilty, but sentenced him with leniency because… it wasn’t customary in Sciences Po to follow all the financial rules.’
 * I think this has been simplified to the point that it’s misleading. Here is what seems to have happened according to the source : Jean-Claude Casanova was president of the Foundation Nationale pour Sciences Politiques (FNSP), which manages Sciences Po. During this time he made a funding decision relating to the «mission lycee » project without consulting the FNSP’s administrative council. Since public money was involved, the French government’s Court of Audit later looked into this, and concluded that while neither the law nor the FNSP’s regulations had been broken, Casanova technically should have consulted the council according to its own procedures. However, they also accepted that Casanova had considered this particular decision a standard budget modification, which wasn’t commonly something he had to consult them on. In the end the Court fined him 1500 euros. So it appears this was a specific case of a technical breach of procedure . However, that’s quite far removed from the claim that there was a culture of breaking financial laws at Sciences Po and I don’t think the incident has been presented in a balanced way in the article. So much context is missing.

sorry to ask your opinion again. In my view these three bits in particular haven't presented the sources fairly – is there a process for getting them re-written? Since the page is protected do admins need to get involved? Sorry for quite a long post! Toden102 (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The only procedure is to make an edit request for the admins to do as described at WP:FULL. However, they are unlikely to do it because the issues are not egregious errors of some sort. Better to wait until the protection lifts. Meanwhile, you can see if any other editors have objections. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you! SalimJah You mentioned in one of the other threads that the 'scandals' section sounded rather too indictment-like, and I'm tempted to agree now I've looked at the sources more. Do you have any thoughts on the presentation of the sources etc? Toden102 (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this review, Toden102! :) We all agree, I think, that both the "criticisms" and "scandals" sections must stay. The majority of the sources in the article as it currently stands are tied to those sections, so we have a lot of material to start from. So I'd simply do what you generously started to undertake: review the sources, figure out what they really say, adjust the content and tone of the sections accordingly, and drop the ones that are not related to the subject matter. Moving forward, I also suggest that Launebee refrains from citing too many sources in his arguments. If those are not precisely tied to the arguments made in the text, the only result is to obfuscate the conversation and create additional review work for all of us. SalimJah (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yes, lots of reviewing to do - I'll try to do some more at some point. To be fair, I think the sources used in the 'scandals' bit are generally good quality, largely being articles from respected news sites. The problem for me is that these sources have been presented in a rather disjointed and even misleading way, often with important details left out. I think it's a slightly different situation to the 'criticisms' section where my feeling is that many of the sources themselves are of questionable value. Toden102 (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

No-one’s replied for a while so unless there are objections I’ll make some amendments at some point - things discussed previously plus these bits:
 * During World War II (1939–45)… Sciences Po's board of directors before the war.
 * The source only mentions Petain once in passing and doesn’t say anything about ‘ambiguous behavior.’ I think it makes sense to remove these kind of assertions unless there are sources which can support and clarify them.


 * Since 1997, the institution has been hit by a number of scandals.
 * Should be re-worded for clarity – the scandals in question concerned the leadership of Richard Descoings, whose tenure began in 1997, but that’s very different to scandals hitting ‘since 1997’ (they actually happened about a decade and a half after this).


 * Descoings was found dead… the missing phones and computer have raised suspicion.
 * Very vague. Unclear what the paragraph contributes to our understanding of financial scandals. The main article on Descoings discusses his death so personally I feel it would be best to leave it out here.


 * Re-wording of the last and third-to-last paragraphs to better reflect the sources. Toden102 (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Those are all reasonable points. Thank you for your work, Toden102! SalimJah (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The source does not say that the scandals are linked to Descoings, they continued afterwards. His death was on a trip to represent Sciences Po, it is directly linked to SP. Please don’t delete sources for what is after. --Launebee (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I reintroduced the reference to Descoings' death (seems notable) and reworded the sentence so that it is now clear that the Sciences Po "scandals" were notably but not only linked to Descoings. For the other claims, Toden102 has conduced a thorough review of the references, and has removed the bits that weren't appropriated sourced. If you disagree with his assessment, could you please provide a list of the points which you think should be added back together with some supporting references (please refer to specific pages / lines)? Thanks! SalimJah (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * SalimJah, I guess I didn’t feel it was particularly relevant to scandals at Sciences Po specifically so decided to remove it. However, the new wording is definitely an improvement and makes the link much clearer. Happy to leave it if that’s the consensus :) Toden102 (talk) 07:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Toden and you are obviously rewording the sources in a non neutral way, and deleting sources you don’t like, but, since you keep edit-warring, we will deal with that later. --Launebee (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Launebee, not at all! I’ve set out where I felt the sources hadn’t been presented fairly. I waited over a week after first raising the issue before making changes but no-one had written to object at that point so I went ahead. If you object then please let me know which bits and I’m happy to discuss it :) Toden102 (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the sentence ‘it has been found that an inspector of the French Court of Audit, in charge of investigating the financial behaviour of Sciences Po, was in the same time employed by Sciences Po.’, you cannot cherry-pick elements. The source is The source is a Mediapart article and here are the title and the lead: "When Sciences-Po salaries its controller. The magistrate of the Court of Auditors who launched the control of Sciences-Po is also employed by the National Foundation of Political Sciences. A conflict of interest that illustrates the special relationship between the school and the senior civil service." (Google translate)  It fits.

Regarding the sentence ‘The Court of Financial and Budgetary Discipline eventually found Casanova guilty, but sentenced him with leniency because… it wasn’t customary in Sciences Po to follow all the financial rules it's true the source says ''First, because, albeit irregular, the manner in which Richard Descoings' remuneration was fixed remained "collegiate". Next, as regards the 'high school mission', the Court concedes that 'it was not customary to refer the draft budgetary decision to the Administrative Board'.''. So this could be reworded. I would agree with The Court of Financial and Budgetary Discipline eventually found Casanova guilty, but sentenced him with leniency because the responsibility was collegial and it wasn’t customary in Sciences Po to follow the legal procedure regarding budgetary decisions.

--Launebee (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Launebee, thanks for commenting. In response:
 * First, regarding the Médiapart article – well, like you say, we can’t cherry-pick. The title and lead are dramatic but they don't tell the whole story. The article says Jean Picq decided to have no involvement with decisions regarding SP (« s’excluant systématiquement des discussions concernant le contrôle de l’école de la rue Saint-Guillaume »). It also admits that there’s no evidence he did anything wrong (« Rien ne prouve aujourd’hui que Jean Picq… a commis une faute et agi contre l’intérêt de la Cour. ») If we use this source, we need to relate it in a more complete way.


 * Second, regarding the Jean-Claude Casanova bit – I disagree with the phrasing “it wasn’t customary in Sciences Po to follow the legal procedure regarding budgetary decisions” - that isn’t quite what the source says. The relevant phrase is “la Cour concède qu’« il n’était pas d’usage de saisir le conseil d’administration d’un projet de décision budgétaire modificative » - a better translation is “The Court concedes that it was not customary to consult the Administrative Council over budget modification decisions.” This is very different to saying that SP had a culture of breaking legal procedures.
 * Indeed, another important phrase from the source is « le non-respect de règles de consultation du conseil d’administration, qui ne figurent ni dans la loi ni dans les statuts de la Fondation, constitue un manquement au sens de l’article L. 313-4 du code des juridictions financières ». So the Court said that Casanova didn’t break the law or the FNSP’s statutes. However, his actions were in breach of the ‘spirit’, not the letter, of the financial conduct code – that’s why they fined him 1500 euros. This wasn’t a criminal trial, and Casanova didn’t break the law, so expressions like “found him guilty” and “sentenced” aren’t appropriate.
 * My suggestion for that paragraph is:
 * In July 2015, Jean-Claude Casanova, the former president of the Foundation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, the private trust which manages Sciences Po, was fined €1500 for failing to properly consult the Foundation’s Administrative Council over budgeting decisions involving public money. The Court of Financial and Budgetary Discipline decided that, although Casanova did not break the law, his actions constituted a breach of the spirit of the Code of Financial Conduct.
 * What do you think of this suggestion? Toden102 (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your insight.
 * 1. The lead sumamrizes the article. (The article says that the problem was not a direct participation in the decisions regarding SP, but the "entre-soi", ie the fact it shows people in SP and those supposed controlling it are very connected, which lead to no real control at all.)
 * 2. Of course, he broke the law (because the law imposed to have to put procedures to assure financial transparency, and those procedures were not respected), it’s why a national court condemned him.
 * --Launebee (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Launebee, sorry for the slow reply.
 * 1) We can’t cherry pick: the whole source needs to be summarized, not just the title and first line. How's this?
 * In February 2012, the news site Médiapart reported that a magistrate of the Court of Audit, Jean Picq, had worked as a visiting professor at Sciences Po at the time of the Court's investigations. Picq had agreed to remove himself from deliberations regarding Sciences Po, so avoided breaking conflict of interest rules. However, Médiapart argued that the incident demonstrated an unduly close relationship between the university and its supervisory authorities.
 * I think this summarizes the situation fairly. If you disagree then please suggest an alternative.
 * 2) The source from Le Monde says the opposite of what you’re claiming. It explicitly states that Casanova’s misdemeanor (that is, not properly consulting the FNSP about budgeting decisions) “does not feature in the law”.
 * I think my proposed version relates the source in a neutral way. Again, please suggest something else if you disagree. Toden102 (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Such a sentence is cherry-peaking. "The magistrate of the Court of Auditors who launched the control of Sciences-Po is also employed by the National Foundation of Political Sciences. A conflict of interest that illustrates the special relationship between the school and the senior civil service." (Google translate) is not the first sentence of the article, but its lead, summarizing the whole article.
 * No, Le Monde says it was not written in the law (acts of parliament). Of course he broke the law (broader), otherwise a national court of justice would have no basis to condemn him.
 * --Launebee (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Partners in lead
The prestigious partners should not be mentioned in the lead. It is never done so and it would be boosterism since it does not summarize the institution. --Launebee (talk) 09:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the partner universities were being presented in an overly favorable way. However, the Columbia University article mentions it’s partnered with SP in the lede. Possibly partner universities should be mentioned if there’s an especially developed connection with them? Does Wikipedia have guidelines on this? Toden102 (talk) 10:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems to happen occasionally, but then virtually everything happens occasionally somewhere on Wikipedia and university articles are prone to boosterism. A notable difference seems to be that the Columbia article gives (or at least appears to give) a complete list of partner institutions, some of which are world-famous and others which I've never heard of. These are also all joint degree programmes, rather than 'year abroad' partnerships. I personally wouldn't have chosen to have this in the lead, but it seems to be neutral. The SP article, however, seems to be picking out the most famous partners, which therefore appears to be trying to impress - i.e. it is boosterism. It is worth mentioning that undergraduates take a year abroad, since this appears to be a significant part of the SP programme, and probably that there are 470 partners, but not calling out any specific partners by name, i.e. include the deleted sentence "The Sciences Po Undergraduate College offers a three-year Bachelors degree that includes a year abroad at one of Sciences Po's 470 partner universities." but not "…has linked partnerships with 470 universities including Columbia University, the University of Cambridge, the London School of Economics, and Peking University.". Robminchin (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Robminchin, that sounds fair to me. Launebee, do you agree? Toden102 (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would agree with "The Sciences Po Undergraduate College offers a three-year Bachelors degree that includes a year abroad at one of Sciences Po's partner universities." The number of partners is not relevant in the lead. --Launebee (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would agree that normally the number of partners wouldn't be worth mentioning, but in the case of SP it is notable. If you look at the partner institution pages for, e.g., LSE or Durham, SP has a far greater number of partners: Durham has ~20, LSE has 6 (of which only 2, SP and UC Berkeley, are undergraduate exchange partnerships), SP has ~500. To me, that makes it very different from other institutions and thus worth mentioning. Robminchin (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing joint degrees and exchange partners. SP numbers of exchange partners (with no diploma from the receiving institution) has nothing extraordinary. For example, UPMC-Sorbonne Universités has 430 partners, it will increase next year when it will merge with Paris-Sorbonne which has 400 partners. It shows that the term partner is not good because misleading. The sentence should also be amended so that it says that the diploma is not a diploma in a specific field, but only a "SP diploma". It's only in masters that they offer diplomas in something, and it should be mentioned because it's a specificity of this institution (which is not a university, and it's linked). --Launebee (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the Durham page is explicitly "Erasmus, Exchange & Study Abroad" partners. For LSE the number of exchange parters is actually lower: if you follow through the links, you'll find SP is the only Erasmus partner, and the only other exchange partners are UC Berkeley and (for a limited number of departments) Melbourne. If the French universities have far more exchange partners than is normal in the academic world, this is notable for all of them and not just SP, but it is still notable. Robminchin (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are referring to with 'The sentence should also be amended so that it says that the diploma is not a diploma in a specific field, but only a "SP diploma". It's only in masters that they offer diplomas in something, and it should be mentioned because it's a specificity of this institution (which is not a university, and it's linked).' This doesn't seem to refer to anything in the disputed text, which (as far as I can see from the edit history) did not mention diplomas at all. Could you clarify this? Robminchin (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok for LSE then. But I guess it is an English thing then. Because Upsalla University has 400 partners too..
 * Regarding the other question, indeed it's new. I think it is worth mentionning that in the lead since this is a specificity of this institution, it only gives a "SP diploma" at undergraduate level. --Launebee (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Possibly large numbers of partners are more common for continental universities. It would, however, seem reasonable to expect many users of English wikipedia to be more familiar with the English norm of having a small number of selected partners. The US seems to follow the British pattern (e.g. Columbia and Cornell). I certainly see no harm in mentioning the number of partners - it can hardly be considered academic boosterism that SP isn't particularly selective when it comes to who it partners with!
 * On the question of the diploma, I note that SP's website says it awards a Bachelor of Arts with a choice of three different majors. Your suggestion should probably be discussed under a separate heading as others may not be following this discussion. Robminchin (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably. But then the context of the programme should be given too, and it is not an actual bachelor. In French, they say only "Bachelor" (original), which is the ad' name of their diploma on the website, to create a confusion with an actual bachelor, but it is "diplôme de SP" only . They choose majors, but it is not like for example having a bachelor in political sciences in a university, which exist in France, including in private universities [ie the Université Catholique de Lille, private and with bachelors (in French licences) in political sciences ). It is a private institution, not a university, only giving institutional diplomas. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so we would agree it should follow the truth from independant sources, not the confusion introduced by the subject's website, and sources clearly state the differences beetween the bachelor and the SP diploma branded "bachelor" (original):. I found this source explaining: the "Bachelor" is basically not recognized, it seems purely honorary, and all students continue for two more year to have the SP Diploma. This Undergruate College thing seems only to look like a university. In the source, the president says he does not want to have a licence (bachelor) accreditation. The sentence could be: "Sciences Po offers a five-year degree that includes in third year a year abroad at one of Sciences Po's 470 partner universities and results in the delivrance of the "Diploma of Sciences Po".ref" --Launebee (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Launebee, that isn’t quite what these sources are saying. The word diplôme can be translated as ‘degree’ as well as ‘diploma’. The fact that the source refers to SP degrees as 'diplômes' is not evidence that those degrees are only ‘branded bachelors’.
 * One of the other sources you've given appears to say the opposite of what you’re claiming: it says that at SP Paris you get a bachelors after three years of study and then a masters two years after that (unlike other French IEPs, which offer a five-year course). The source doesn't support your claim that the SP bachelor isn’t recognized either: it mentions that currently the SP bachelor isn’t categorized as a ‘licence’ - the qualification awarded mainly by French public universities – and that they're not interested in going through a long, complex bureaucratic process to have it classified as such. Basically, the article is discussing how the SP bachelor is categorized in the French system, it isn’t saying that it’s not recognized. Toden102 (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, diploma or degree, anyway. The sources say their "Bachelor" is not a bachelor degree. Perhaps they trick foreign universities to think it is a bachelor, but SP clearly has no accreditation to deliver bachelor degrees, the sources say. The "Diploma of SP" cannot be obtained after a (true) bachelor with a two-year programme, it is a five year programme, even if they deliver a "Bachelor" meanwhile. --Launebee (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It is worth noting that the idea that the degree is awarded by the university rather than the state is the norm in the English speaking world (which is how we ended up with the Oxbridge MA and the Scottish MA, but that's another story). While it might be worth exploring this distinction in the body of the article, I don't feel that the issue here is something that could be explained to someone who doesn't have a deep knowledge of the French system in the sentence or two that the lead allows.
 * At the bottom line, Science Po call this as a bachelor's degree and, unless the French authorities rule that this is false advertising, I think we have to accept that that is what it is called. Discussion on the recognition of the Science Po bachelor's degree belongs in the body of the article, not the lead.
 * I'm not sure how Launebee's point about not being able to get the diploma with a 2-year study following a bachelor's degree is relevant. This is normal for integrated courses with a break-point in the UK - you can leave with a bachelor's or continue to a master's, but if you enter post-bachelor's you don't go onto the same course as the continuing students. Robminchin (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In France too, degrees are awarded by the universities. And I'm confident in England too universities have to be accredited, by the king in that case. The Oxford page says for example that "The university was granted a royal charter in 1248 during the reign of King Henry III." SP is an ad hoc system, it has State recognition, but only for some specific things. And they call the three-year degree a "Bachelor" not a "licence", so they don’t "call it a bachelor degree". --Launebee (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that by pointing out where I was mistaken regarding degrees, you have made my point for me. The situation is too complicated to explain in the lead, and is completely different to the way things work in the English-speaking world. (Oxford's a really bad example, btw, as its royal charter had nothing to do with making it a university or awarding degrees but rather gave it various rights to lord it over the townsfolk. It never actually received an explicit grant of degree awarding powers from either king or pope, it just set up and started doing it because you could get away with that in the 12th century.)
 * Science Po says "Following their three years of study, students earn their Bachelor of Arts degree." That is, explicitly, calling it a bachelor's degree. They also explicitly refer to the qualification from the various joint programmes as a "dual bachelor's degree" on the same page. The Sciences Po qualification is also explicitly recognised as a bachelor's degree at their English-language partner institutions. It seems clear that the English-language terminology for this qualification is "bachelor's degree", whatever its legal status in France might be, thus that is what we should use here. Robminchin (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess it is a question of worth of sources, and a language issue. As for the qualification "university", both point of view should be explained. And, as you say, it should be in the article, not in the lead, since it is too complicated. (Regarding Oxford, they give a date of recognition as a university in the article.) --Launebee (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * How about describing it as "bachelor's degree (not to be confused with the French Licence degree; see below)" in the lead, and then inserting a longer discussion in the body? (Re Oxford, the article gives a date of recognition as a universitas, which is simply the Latin for corporation, of 1231; it was, however, already regarded as a Studium Generale by this point, the date for which is often taken as 1167 when the English students were withdrawn from Paris, which almost brings us back on topic.) Robminchin (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * To me, it is too confusing to be in the lead, especially when it is not necessary to mention this topic in the lead. The content of the article is sufficient. --Launebee (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Ranking presentation
@Robminchin: the change of order in the presentation of the ranking in that diff (originally based on your text I think) seems biased to me? Don't you think? --Launebee (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the slow response – I got hit by a hurricane.
 * It seems to me that the overall rankings should probably be included in the rankings section rather than simply the subject rankings, at least in a rankings infobox if not in the text. I think the appropriate infobox would be Template:Infobox world university ranking. Robminchin (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sciences Po. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051012215250/http://chevs.sciences-po.fr/archives/fonds/sciences_po_2_en.htm to http://chevs.sciences-po.fr/archives/fonds/sciences_po_2_en.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160913154940/https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20120405/midtown/cops-believe-french-scholar-accidentally-overdosed to https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20120405/midtown/cops-believe-french-scholar-accidentally-overdosed

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ref name=Dahrendorf
Under 1872 to 1945: École Libre des Sciences Politiques, History section‎: Added citation details to  per googlebooks. I am copying this data from jawiki (Q|174570) dated 2018-08-12T03:37, so pls kindly ping me if you correct/edit the text containing this citation. --Omotecho (talk) 03:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)