Talk:University of Paris/Archive 1

2005
The Sorbonne doesn't refer to all Univesities of Paris :it refers to Paris I and Paris IV. Paris III is called Sorbonne nouvelle (The new Sorbonne).
 * The introduction of the article mainly concerns the historic university, before the split. The modern universities will all hopefully get their own articles. Uppland 10:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * "closing of the university for only the second time in history"

see University of Paris strike of 1229, closed for a few years. Stbalbach 15:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Present Population
This article focuses on the history. Does anybody know the present student population, and its breakdown between the various colleges, of the University?El Gringo 02:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There are no "colleges", but several universities which are called University of Paris-something. I think the population ranks from 7000 or 8000 for Dauphine (which is now a technology university, ie not a "pure" university") to almost 40000 for Paris 1. Apokrif 13:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The Sorbonne is the faculty of theology of the university of paris and not the university itself.

whoah, this page is too long...
this page is too long... if i had time i'd reorganize it into summaries and with a link to the full page... maybe i'll get around to it (probably not), but anyway, if someone could, please split this page up (i'm going to bed now, and I'm nearly asleep as I write this, but it's definitely too long in some sections... i guess i'll add a wikify button to it :-) ) 68.226.138.217 05:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Closing of the university
The article states "resulting in the closing of the university for only the third time in history (the first one in 1229 and the second having been the invasion by the German army of 1940)"

Unless I’ve mixed up events the University was actually closed for a year in the 15th century. I found this when watching a documentary on François Villon who was a student there during the closure.

As mentioned in the article, the students were subject only to ecclesiastical jurisdiction but in the early 1400's the students were getting too out of control so the King sent police to arrest some troublemakers. One student was killed and seven arrested. In reply the ecclesiastical authorities not only shut the university down but also ordered the priests to stop preaching in the churches of Paris. This led to the public fearing for their souls due to having no church services and additional pressure on the King. The King held out for a year but then released the seven students and renewed the agreement not to interfere in the University. Wayne 04:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Expulsion of foreigners
The section on the early history states that both the teachers and students included a considerable number of foreigners, but the article on Oxford University attributes its foundation in part to the expulsion of foreigners from the University of Paris in 1167. Dudleymiles (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

athletics
How are the athletic programs? shouldn't there be a section? --166.137.139.51 (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Dispute
New Sorbonne University claims to inheritate many of the buildings and traditions of old Paris University, of which it is, stricto-sensu, just a part. A section on that ? 129.199.215.142 (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

This article previously reads:

"In 1970, following the May 1968 events, the university was divided into 13 autonomous universities. Three of the new universities took over three of the faculties and the majority of their professors: humanities by Paris-Sorbonne University, law and economics by Panthéon-Assas University, natural sciences by Pierre and Marie Curie University. The faculty of medicine had no direct successor because teaching was organized in relation with different hospitals, which were separated between Paris Descartes University, which kept the historical buildings of the Paris Medicine Faculty, Pierre and Marie Curie University, and Paris Diderot University. Some of the new structures, like Panthéon-Sorbonne University, Paris Descartes University and Paris Diderot University chose to be multidisciplinary. Others, like Sorbonne Nouvelle, were new structures but focusing on one subject. "

Please note that the source stated in the previous version does not back any of the information stated. Moreover, the idea that the Paris-Sorbonne, Pantheon-Assas and Pierre and Marie Curie universities were the main inheritors of the old Sorbonne is dismissed by the very page of the Chancellerie of the University of Paris, which states that the inheritors of the old Sorbonne (that still have their departments located in the old building) are:

Paris I panthéon-Sorbonne Paris III Sorbonne-Nouvelle Paris IV Paris-Sorbonne Paris V René Descartes

https://www.sorbonne.fr/la-sorbonne/histoire-de-la-sorbonne/

What is more, the part that reads

"In 2018, the University of Paris will be re-established under the name Sorbonne University"

(...) is just a complete absurd as the University of Paris never ceased to exist, it was only divided into 13 parts. All of them are part, and still will be part, of the University of Paris by 2018. The union between Paris IV and VI has the name University Sorbonne-University, as one can see here: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000034455357&dateTexte=&categorieLien=id, to avoid the confusion with the old Sorbonne.

Even after 2018, one cannot refer to this new university as the re=establishment of the old University of Paris, aka Sorbonne, as the other 11 universities that are part of the University of Paris will still exist - not to mentioned the other 2 universities that have "Sorbonne" in their names and have their classrooms at "La Sorbonne". --SirJamesMcBiscuit (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The Chancellerie page is very light and is focused on the Sorbonne building, even if the formulation of the short text is confusing.

It is written "the history of the Sorbonne" and inside "Son histoire, au cours des siècles, a été si intimement liée à celle de l’Université de Paris, qu’elle en est devenue le symbole." (its history is so linked to the University of Paris that it has become its symbol) : the article is clearly not about the university as a whole, but about the Sorbonne building and its organisation.

Times Higher Education states :

"France’s most iconic university, the Sorbonne, is reborn"

"Sorbonne University, a recreation of the institution that existed from the 13th century until 1970."

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/frances-most-iconic-university-sorbonne-reborn

Le Figaro, one of the first French newspaper:

"Le retour de la grande université de Paris" (the return of the great parisian university)

http://etudiant.lefigaro.fr/article/le-retour-de-la-grande-universite-de-paris_4fd4f28c-e3d6-11e6-89bc-1146aeb0c0af/

University World News:

"Chambaz told University World News: “One of the biggest limitations of French universities came over four decades ago when they separated along disciplinary lines. One had all sciences, another only the humanities, another just law and economics.

“UPMC was created from the science and medical faculties of the old Sorbonne, the University of Paris, which split in 1970. Paris-Sorbonne had the arts and humanities

“In some ways we are recreating the old Sorbonne, but for the 21st century,” he concludes.

The University of Technology of Compiègne and Panthéon-Assas University’s school of law economics, otherwise known as the Sorbonne University Group, could form part of the new merged university in the near future."

https://www.studyinternational.com/news/consolidation-of-two-elite-paris-universities-confirmed-for-2018/#ueqSveXzd4FU54uu.97

And, last but not the least, it is called "Sorbonne University". It is obviously the reborn of University of Paris.

--213.174.99.136 (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorbonne IS the nickname of the University of Paris' main building and never existed as a university prior-1970. From that time on, the University of Paris was divided in 13 other universities, 3 of them have "Sorbonne" in their names and still are located in the main building. For decades this confusion served to some of the students of the 3 universities to advertised their universities as "the real Sorbonne", THE inheritor of LA Sorbonne. But truth is: they are all successors of the University of Paris, that is why they are called University of Paris I to XIII.

The new university, which merges two - and not THE two - of the inheritors of the University of Paris is called Université Sorbonne-Univesité and not Université de la Sorbonne (as you can check on the very decree of the university establishment here: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000034455357&dateTexte=&categorieLien=id). So the argument that "it is called "Sorbonne University" [so] It is obviously the reborn of University of Paris" (FYI: we say "rebirth") is not solely weak but also flawed.

The reference concerning the THE article is also fruit of such a confusion that is made between university of Paris and Sorbonne, not to mention that it seems to be a classical example of gatekeeping issues (i.e. when advertisement influences in journalism content). In this case, as this is an encyclopaedia and not an advert piece, one should look at the official sources, as the one of the Chancellerie of Paris, that goes goes straight to the point in affirming that the inheritors of the Sorbonne (which is and always was a building not an university per se) are the Universities of Paris 1,3,4 and 5.

As for your other references, I have not seen anything that backs up the text that you are supporting. Only a part of an interview with the president of such a new university that says that, in HIS opinion, "in some ways" they are "recreating the old Sorbonne, but in the 21st century". Such statement should not be interpreted as if the other eleven universities of Paris should be disregarded as the inheritors of the university of Paris, but that, for the first time since 1970, Paris will have a large and multidisciplinary university, such was the old University of Paris.

I would also like to remember you, that the University Sorbonne-Université is not the only fusion of Parisian universities that is envisioned in the near future. There are plenty of examples, but just to keep focus in our discussion about the name "Sorbonne" and the University of Paris, you can see that there is also the Univesity of Sorbonne Paris Cité, the union between 3 universities - in which 2 (and not just one) are present in the Sorbonne building. http://www.sorbonne-paris-cite.fr/en.

As all the subjects related to the University of Paris and the name "Sorbonne" have been debated extensively since the 1970s - and will not stop any time soon - I suggest this page to be linked to its French counterpart - which is more accurate insofar there are more people capable of contributing and control its content.

PS: Please do not edit my text in the discussion page, changing its title and setting it at the end of the discussion page not to be seen. This is a biased and counterproductive action, not to mention that it is against the rules of wikipedia.

--SirJamesMcBiscuit (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I just came back to end this question once and for all.

Here are links to the other two Universities of Paris which also carry the name "Sorbonne":

Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1):

https://www.univ-paris1.fr/universite/presentation/

Which reads:

"Héritière à la fois de la Sorbonne et de la Faculté de droit du Panthéon, Paris 1 est (...)

or

"Heir of both of the Sorbonne and the faculty of Law of the Panthéon, Paris 1 is (...)

Sorbonne nouvelle (Paris 3)

http://www.univ-paris3.fr/l-universite-sorbonne-nouvelle-paris-3-165136.kjsp?RH=1508852133322

Which reads:

"Créée en 1970, l'Université Sorbonne Nouvelle - Paris 3 est issue de l'ancienne faculté des lettres de l'Université de Paris."

which translated to:

"Founded in 1970, the Sorbonne Nouvelle - Paris 3 University inherited the former Faculty of Arts of the University of Paris".

On top of that, the very university which the texts previously stated was, together with Paris VI, the sole inheritor of the Sorbonne states the following:

"Créée par le décret du 23 décembre 1970, l’Université Paris-Sorbonne telle que nous la connaissons aujourd’hui est ainsi, aux côtés des douze autres universités de Paris, héritière de la longue tradition culturelle et intellectuelle de l’Université de Paris. "

(http://www.paris-sorbonne.fr/historique)

or:

"Created by the decree of 23 December 1970, the University Paris-Sorbonne as we know it today is thus, alongside the other twelve universities of Paris, heir to the long cultural and intellectual tradition of the University of Paris."

Therefore, as long as the 13 universities that make the University of Paris do not get together, one cannot say that the university of Paris will be re-established as just one institution of higher education. Moreover, as far as the Sorbonne is concerned, Paris IV, as well as the university that will come out of its fusion with Paris VI, cannot be considered the ONLY Sorbonne, inasmuch as they are at least other two universities that claim to have inherited the buildings and the faculties of the old Sorbonne (not to mentioned the fact that their own envisaged fusions with other parisian universities are also to have "Sorbonne" in their names.

--SirJamesMcBiscuit (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The 13 universities had some inheritance from the University of Paris, but the three faculties had each a main inheritor (with the same historical buildings etc.) and two of them re-created the University of Paris under the name "Sorbonne University". Both things are not contradictory and it is what the sources and the article say.

--82.141.252.178 (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I will have to go with the user that says that all the states that there are other universities that are part of the university of Paris and, thus, the union between two of these universities cannot be considered the rebirth of the university. This statement is just utter nonsense. Everybody who has ever being in one of these universities know it. The references presented are not even saying that. --2001:1284:F01C:14CF:4D7F:3A2C:4AF8:41DF (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The two first IP users point of view fit with the sources. "Everybody knowS it" and "this is nonsense" are not valid arguments. The sources are absolutely clear.

@Kleuske: could you give your point of view here? --JeanBirkin (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kleuske: this page should now be renamed "History of the University of Paris" because it only deals with the history of the university. Could you do it? --JeanBirkin (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Reading the sources of the two different versions of the articles, one can see that the official ones, including those from the universities concerned, all support the text which states that the University of Paris was indeed divided into different universities and, at least, 6 of them are direct inheritors and 3 of them carry the name Sorbonne. Whereas the other edits, which seem all to be from the same user (with the same English mistakes) do not have the sources to support its argument that other universities, not included in the fusion, are new structures. As we can see in all the official sources, that is not the case.

--Canyouhearmemajortom? (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The name "Sorbonne" is related to the building, not the university. --SummertimeinCrocodilopolis (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed, but this article is about the University of Paris. The University of Paris, as today, is divided into 13 universities (ie. University of Paris 1 to 13). This article is about all of them, and not just one.

--Canyouhearmemajortom? (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Some users are mistaking :
 * the Sorbonne University for the Sorbonne building
 * inherit from something (11 universities inherited from the University of Paris) for being something (3 of them actually were the previous faculties, and now 1 university is the Sorbonne University)

The source provided by the other user is only talking about inheriting, and that is not contradictory with the fact Sorbonne University IS the University of Paris, only its 2rd reborn (after 1806). Like RaphaelQS said in another talk page, the sources are pretty clear on that. And the article already mention in the article section that 11 universities inherited from the Sorbonne University, these are two separate things.

RaphaelQS, the move of the page to "History of the University of Paris" seems sensible to me. Don’t you think?

--SummertimeinCrocodilopolis (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed, but this article is about the University of Paris. The University of Paris, as today, is divided into 13 universities (ie. University of Paris 1 to 13). This article is about all of them, and not just one.

--Canyouhearmemajortom? (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The main problem of this version is located in the following extract:

"In 1970, following the May 1968 events, the university was divided into 13 autonomous universities. Three of the new universities took over three of the faculties and the majority of their professors: humanities by Paris-Sorbonne University, law and economics by Panthéon-Assas University, natural sciences by Pierre and Marie Curie University. The faculty of medicine had no direct successor because teaching was organized in relation with different hospitals, which were separated between Paris Descartes University, which kept the historical buildings of the Paris Medicine Faculty, Pierre and Marie Curie University, and Paris Diderot University. Some of the new structures, like Panthéon-Sorbonne University, Paris Descartes University and Paris Diderot University chose to be multidisciplinary. Others, like Sorbonne Nouvelle, were new structures but focusing on one subject.[3]"

The reference in the text does not support its content. Moreover, as the other user already mentioned, the University of Sorbonne Nouvelle is not a new structure. It is the inheritor of the faculty of Humanities as one can see it here:

http://www.univ-paris3.fr/l-universite-sorbonne-nouvelle-paris-3-165136.kjsp?RH=1508852133322

In the same fashion, Pantheon-Sorbonne is also not a "new structure" as it is the inheritor of the faculty of Social Sciences. As can be seen here:

https://www.univ-paris1.fr/universite/presentation/

--Canyouhearmemajortom? (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * There was no "faculty of social sciences" of the University of Paris, it just has never existed.


 * This article is not about all the universities that have an historical link with the University, but with this university only. And the sources are clear.

--SummertimeinCrocodilopolis (talk) 07:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Who said that the faculty of Social Sciences never existed, you? Should we trust you and the editor of THE or the official webpages of the universities concerned? Canyouhearmemajortom? (talk) 10:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

These sources are clearer and official. . Canyouhearmemajortom? (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

You are misreading the sources, as several of us already explained to you. --SummertimeinCrocodilopolis (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so and I am not the only one. Canyouhearmemajortom? (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Reverting edits
As the users that defended the idea that Sorbonne University was the rebirth of the University of Paris were Sockpuppets [] of a user who was previously blocked from editing French Universities articles User_talk:Launebee- and with the user RaphaelQS finally agreeing with the fact that the former statement is not accurate - I am starting to revert the POV pushing edits. --SirJamesMcBiscuit (talk) 12:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

My Thoughts
Unfortunately, with the history of sockpuppetry and other conduct issues, I do not think that content dispute resolution will be feasible until the conduct issues are dealt with, and I think that the conduct issues will require the Arbitration Committee to conduct a full quasi-judicial case.

See my thoughts at University of Paris Dispute.

I will submit a supporting statement to any request for arbitration. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Trying to reach a consensus
In order to build a more neutral article and a more fruitful discussion here, I have rewritten part of the article in order to achieve a consensus here. I have tried to use all the references on both sides to write an article that shows both views over the subjects. Please do not erase references nor text that is supported by those references. Let's try be reasonable and neutral here. Thank you. --Canyouhearmemajortom? (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear Canyouhearmemajortom?,

You are obviously editing in good faith but without knowing about the WP rules. Please read WP:NOR. There is no source saying "the THE says… but", so you cannot include such a text in an article. Please avoid editing before understang WP rules.

By the way, the is no "official" history, so no "official source".

--SummertimeinCrocodilopolis (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear SummerCrocodile,

As I don't see us achieving any consensus soon regarding whether the Sorbonne university is the rebirth of the university of Paris or not, can we just, on the mean time, try to get to a consensus regarding the fact that some universities, as Sorbonne nouvelle and Pantheon Sorbonne, are not new structures as, per their official websites, they inherited both some faculties and the physical spaces of the old university of Paris? Canyouhearmemajortom? (talk) 14:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Since we are discussing in good faith, I explain :). The University of Paris was divided in faculties. These faculties became universities: they stayed as they were. But for example Paris 1 was created from some professors of the faculty of law (not social sciences) and some of the faculty of letters: so its new. A faculty of law and humanities (social sciences in a large sense) did not exist before. It is new, but they have inherited from the University of Paris indeed. Regarding New Sorbonne, the fact it is new is written in the title!

Please propose here a new formulation if you wish, but the article is quite clear to me on the fact all 13 universities are inheritors from the University of Paris (and it is not contradictory with the fact the main ones, the successors of the faculty, recreated the Sorbonne University, and the others are new structure).

I added your sources in your article. --SummertimeinCrocodilopolis (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed the unnecessary mentions of "new structures". --SummertimeinCrocodilopolis (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Although I still disagree with the essence of the article, I am glad that we are opened to discussion and that you seem willing to talk. As for the fact that the Sorbonne Nouvelle would be a new structure because it has "new"in its name, I will have to disagree. In my understanding the idea of the name came to make the difference between the old Sorbonne, the University of Paris, and the "new", after 1970, inheritor of the faculty of Humanities. The site of the chancelerrie seems to indicate that the "new" in the name was a way of linking the Sorbonne tradition to a goal towards innovation.

The history of the University of Paris is well documented here. It tells not only the history of the Sorbonne Nouvelle but also of the University of Paris split, including videos.

In the same page, one can read the following:

"L’histoire de la Sorbonne Nouvelle, c’est avant tout l’histoire de l’ancienne Université de Paris et plus particulièrement de sa faculté des Lettres"

and

"Dès lors, de fin novembre 1968 à septembre 1969, les professeurs des facultés élaborent des projets de création d’UER ; ces UER ainsi constituées élaborent des projets d’universités proposés au ministère de l’enseignement supérieur. Le décret du 21 mars 1970 officialise la création de treize projets d’universités parisiennes qui en fixe la dénomination ainsi que les UER affectées à chacune. Ce décret fixe pour « l’université Paris 3 » les UER qui lui sont rattachées selon trois modalités : le rattachement d’une UER en totalité (UER n° 26 Etudes théâtrales), le rattachement d’une UER en partie, c’est-à-dire que les enseignants d’une même UER ne se sont pas mis d’accord sur l’université de rattachement et se sont dès lors séparés afin d’adhérer à l’université de leur choix (UER n°29 littérature et langue française s’est divisée entre l’université Paris 3 et l’université Paris 4), la création d’une nouvelle UER (département des techniques d’expression et de communication)"

Therefore, according to very website of the university, the Sorbonne Nouvelle - together with Paris-Sorbonne - is one of the inheritors of the faculty of humanities as it inherited part of such a faculty.

I will add this to the text with a reference to the aforementioned page.

Thank you for your previous edits.

--Canyouhearmemajortom? (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I have just found a further reference that goes exactly to the point of our most important discussion. The official website of the University of Paris I states the following:

"[T]outes les universités créées en 1968 au sein de l'Université de Paris sont également les héritières directes de cette dernière. Elles en poursuivent ensemble l'enseignement et la grande tradition scientifique et pédagogique issue d'un passé prestigieux que nous venons d'évoquer".

I will, nevertheless, wait for your position before making any further edit.

--Canyouhearmemajortom? (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I don't see this as contradictory with the fact the Sorbonne University is the University of Paris. Anyway, the websites of the universities are not really "neutral sources" as they should be on WP, on the neutral sources are clear. There are other neutral sources on Paris 2 article saying it is the continuation of the faculty of law for example

--SummertimeinCrocodilopolis (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, why the pages of the Paris I, lll, lV,V and VII would not be neutral and the one from Paris II would be? How about the page of the Academy of Paris, wouldn't it be neutral? Sorbonne University is the University of Paris inasmuch as the other eleven universities that came from the latter. For me, the problem with this article, and the one of Sorbonne University, is that it they give the impression that the latter is the University of Paris and the others are not (or less) University of Paris. Canyouhearmemajortom? (talk) 10:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

When it comes to the neutrality of the official pages of the universities, I think they should be trusted, especially when they make unselfish statements regarding their inheritance and those of their peers. For example, the statement "I am the only, or main, inheritor of the University of Paris" should be viewed with caution, whereas "I, alongside the other Universities of Paris, inherited both its traditions and faculties" should be viewed with appraisal for its attempt towards neutrality. The latter is the case in the above mentioned statement and it also appears in the webpage of Paris IV (which by tomorrow will be part of Sorbonne University). Canyouhearmemajortom? (talk) 11:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I never said any of the university pages should be trusted. I was talking of neutral sources on the Wikipedia article, and gave you a source from the French National Agency of Evaluation of Higher education institutions, which is clearly neutral. Besides, as already said, the statement that all universities have something from the University of Paris is not contradictory with the many and very clear sources saying the Sorbonne University is the "reborn" of the University of Paris. --SummertimeinCrocodilopolis (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

As I said, I think the official websites of the universities of Paris are more trustworthy than a single article of Times Higher, especially when they make unselfish statements.The very site of one of the universities that you are saying is the rebirth of the university of Paris says it otherwise. Not to mention the fact that the website of the Academy of Paris, second in hierarchy only to the French Ministry of Education is saying that rather explicitly.

On the top of that, in 2019 two other inheritors of the University of Paris will merge, this university will also be called University of Paris

What will we do if someone comes here and starts changing this article again saying that the latter is the rebirth of the university of Paris and start to migrate all the history of the latter to its article page?

They would have the same right in doing so than you.

I think we should try to be neutral here and restore the previous version of this article as it was (with updates related to the fusions, of course). Canyouhearmemajortom? (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi there again,

As a further reference that the Sorbonne University is not the "rebirth" of the University of Paris, I am attaching to this discussion an interview with the President of the Sorbonne University to the same media that released the article on which you base your arguments. .

In this interview he clearly says that the Sorbonne University is NOT the rebirth of the the old University of Paris :

"So will the pre-1968 Sorbonne re-emerge? No, Pelletier said. “Our aim isn’t to recreate the old [unified] Sorbonne. The Sorbonne has a considerable weight internationally, so we couldn’t give it to one university; what would happen to the 13 others?”

I rest my case.

--Canyouhearmemajortom? (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, he is not the president of Sorbonne University, but the president of HeSam. In 2014. --SummertimeinCrocodilopolis (talk) 09:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

It does not change much. We have the view of the president of a group that has the same rights as the president of Sorbonne University to say that his university is the rebirth of the pre-68 University of Paris. His refusal to do it so lies in two principles:

1. None of the universities can claim to be the rebirth of the old Sorbonne as this would necessarily mean that all the thirteen universities have to merge together.

2. A university should not make such a claim as it would jeopardise the first principle.

Whether 2018s Sorbonne University and 2019s University of Paris are infringing the latter statement is debatable, however the first statement is not debatable and this page, as an encyclopedic source, should be neutral, thus respecting the first principle. --Canyouhearmemajortom? (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

It is not about a president claiming but about neutral sources stating something

Besides, this "university of Paris" is only one of many project of the two universities involved, and has not been approved at all. --SummertimeinCrocodilopolis (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

You speak about neutral sources but with virtually all the universities involved (including those that make part of the fusion) saying that all the thirteen universities of Paris are inheritors of the University of Paris, I don't see how these statements can be biased. On top of that, with the page of the Academy of Paris (definitely neutral) supporting this information, I don't see how a single sensationalist article can debunk all these official sources, with well documented files (including audiovisual material from 1970), that say in unison the latter statement regarding the University of Paris. Canyouhearmemajortom? (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

As already said here, the WP article is already saying that all are inheritors. That is not contradictory. --SummertimeinCrocodilopolis (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

As the president of one of the universities has said in his aforementioned statement, it is contradictory. Canyouhearmemajortom? (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a point of view. --SummertimeinCrocodilopolis (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not interjecting with an opinion, but a question: what is the motive behind the 'need' for the new university organisation to 'be' the old University of Paris? Is the Catholic church desirous of control over it (like days long before), for example? Or is it a simple 'appeal to antiquity' "the 'good ol' days are back!" angle (which could be tied to the first hypothesis)? Even though neither make rational sense, or can ever be demonstrated factually, it's the only reason for that line of... reasoning I can come up with. But in light of that, perhaps it would be useful to pay particular attention to who's claiming what (in sources), and to give the most weight to statements actually coming from the actual architects of the reorganisation. T P  ✎ ✓ 08:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

University legacy
It seems that there has been no consensus on the "re-creation" of the university, or even a consensus against such idea. --Delfield (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)