Talk:Sciences Po

Any opinion on the tone? It seems neutral to me. --Delfield (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's like tabloid or gossip magazine. For instance these sentences : "Duhamel was indeed organizing many events with the French intelligentsia involving a lot of sex and alcool and mixing adults and children. Small children were told about loss of virginity at 12 and were asked to mime in front of parents sexual acts, 12-year old girls were dressed with provocative clothes and make-up and sent to dance with 40-year-old men, older children are asked to tell the audience about their first sexual experience and young boys are "offered" to older women. [...] The "chock wave" attained people close to Duhamel and Sciences Po. Through the Foundations of Sciences Po, he had a huge network in politics, newspapers, TV channels, finance, etc. [...] Duhamel’s power has extented to the French presidency and the French office of the Prime Minister. He had close relations with Emmanuel Macron: he helped him get elected and was guest at the president's private party after his election. He also assisted Édouard Philippe in becoming Prime Minister and afterwards mayor." Asterix757 (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Asterix757. I don't think it is gossip but facts, even if they are what they are. I think these details are important to understand how big the scandal is. Anyhow, we can let the template as it is for now. --Delfield (talk) 09:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Asterix757: After E's input, regarding the first sentence you mention, it is true that in the article it is a third person account, so I changed it. --Delfield (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Delfield, I don't undestand why you say this [1] was discussed ? With who ?

And I'm surprised you deleted a lot of content on this talk page that XIIIfromTOKYO wrote [2], because only few sentences where personal attacks. There where a lot of rational stuff, in particular regarding the section you added again with a lot of undue details.

I don't want to waste more time here. And certainly don't want to be blocked like XIIIfromTOKYO. I hope some users will do what is necessary on this page and monitor it. @Guy Macon: because you deleted the section some days ago about the Duhamel scandal. Asterix757 (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please stop contacting me over an article where I have made one edit. I have no interest in working on an article where I am unable to read many of the sources. Please leave me alone. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the removal made by Guy Macon (not ping you anymore) was justified as he wrote [3]. This is undue section with non encyclopedic tone. I added templates according to that. Asterix757 (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Guy Macon then erased his text and said he does not speak French. Others have verified the text. You have yourself verified that the text fits with the sources. Please seek consensus in talk page before adding templates. --Delfield (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Delfield. This is astounding how you respond and remove templates again [4] like you don't take into consideration what other users said. I clearly pointed out several problems. Below Hemiauchenia writes: "The section is too long and not encyclopedically written." [5]. Guy Macon has written "This is WP:UNDUE" [6]. And XIIIfromTOKYO wrote it clearly also but you deleted it, still this was not personal attacks, just calm discussion, I put it back [7]. Asterix757 (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

There was not the thorough discussion at that time. Please stop quoting Guy Macon who has taken back his comment. XIIIfromTokyo was blocked at this ANI. Ok for the comment you added back. I hope the current version finds consensus anyway (I removed the template as a consequence). --Delfield (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

It seems that non-Froggish-speaking users do not see the revelance of the Duhamel scandal for Sciences Po and are disturbed by the content. Regarding the content, I think this is cultural. France is not a puranitan or Victorian society: many prominents intellectuals have openly and for a long time pushed for a "sexual liberalization" of children, including pre-teen, and incest too was defended on TV as something beautiful and loving. Still nowadays, there is a debate about a living writer, whose books are mostly about real account of his sexual encounters with underage girls, on whether he is a great writer or not. I could go on counting more shocking, really. This is why many major national and international papers are talking about Sciences Po more than on about Duhamel himself. You can see that Sciences Po is in many titles themselves and many times without Duhamel (in the title). For example, Le Temps quoted by Courrier international talks about an "unpinned grenade on Sciences Po".

Everything is stated as facts in the articles.

Regarding the weight, has anyone seen a scandal about any academic institution, anywhere in the world, that had so important social and institutional effect and that led to so many long reports in major international newspapers, like the NYT or The Times? Perhaps it exists, but I have never seen that. You can check for yourself the enormous amount of sources and many more are to come (because people are now asking the resignation of the whole board according to the media, it is not on the WP article). The current WP article reflects that. Trump University article, for example, is mainly about scandals even though it has never made the headlines of international newspapers. --Delfield (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

The section is too long and not encyclopedically written. The frwiki version fr:Institut_d'études_politiques_de_Paris#2021_:_affaire_Duhamel_et_mouvement_#sciencesporcs is much shorter and more succinct. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

As written before, the length fits with the sources. The French version has no authority and is like a brochure for Sciences Po, so it is not astonishing. --Delfield (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Delfield: Trump University article, for example, is mainly about scandals Yes, but look at the nature of those scandals:

• a lawsuit against the University itself
• an investigation into the University's practices
• another lawsuit naming the University as a defendant
• a lawsuit against Donald Trump alleging he misrepresented the University's products
  • a request for University documents filed in that case
  • comments Trump made about the presiding judge in the University-products misrepresentation case
• a class action filed by University students

...Do you see a pattern here? In all of those cases, the University is a directly-involved party to the scandal. It is a Trump University scandal, 'not a scandal involving an employee of the University.

The issue is not about whether or not the content being added is factual, it's about whether the university is involved. As Guy Macon wrote in a since-deleted message, Feel free to add it to the Olivier Duhamel article. That's where scandals involving Duhamel's personal life would be covered. A mention in this article may be appropriate, but anything more than that is WP:UNDUE.

It has nothing to do with how many sources there are for the details of the scandal, nor about how many of those sources mention Sciences Po. If the only connection is that Duhamel was the President, then Sciences Po is not involved — regardless how much impact the scandal has. It's still a Duhamel personal-life scandal, right? If so, then the choices for covering it in detail are: (1) In the Duhamel article, (2) In an article specifically about the scandal itself. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

As the previous editors FeRDNYC and Hemiauchenia have already explained in detail the section looks like a case of WP:UNDUE and must be severely shortened. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

A rough translation of the frwiki section:

Following the revelations of the Duhamel affair , Frédéric Mion announces his resignation on February 9, 2021, admitting in a press release “errors of judgment” as well as “inconsistencies in the way in which [he] expressed himself”. The next day, the Ministry of Higher Education and Research announced the appointment of Bénédicte Durand, director of training, as provisional administrator of the IEP until the appointment of a new director. Louis Schweitzer is acting as head of the National Foundation for Political Science. The appointment of the future director is due to start in May 2021.

Following Frédéric Mion's departure, on social networks, a movement denouncing acts of sexual violence committed in the IEPs. It echoes the #balancetonporc movement of 2017. At the beginning of February 2020, Anna Toumazoff, feminist activist, launches it by publishing testimonies relating to rapes and exposing the immobility of the administration. Many students speak of a “ culture of rape ”, perpetuating the impunity of the attackers and cultivating the omerta and inaction of the administration of academic institutions.

What Duhamel is actually acccused of should be cut and moved to the Duhamel article. What the section should focus on is 1. prior knowledge of the events by Sciences Po staff. 2. resignations and staff replacements as a result 3. #Metoo aftermath of a wider culture of sexual assault at Sciences Po. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@FeRDNYC (talkCommanderWaterford: Thanks for your input. You are right to make that difference.

However, the president of Sciences Po resigned, the president of the Foundation of Sciences Po resigned, a member of the board resigned, the students are now asking the whole board to resign, other people have resigned because of their links with Sciences Po (not Duhamel). This is about Sciences Po not because an employee of Sciences Po is involved, but because Sciences Po is itself, as an institution accused of covering up and even intellectually enhancing the crimes.

You can see the titles of the sources, they are about the institutional issue:

• "Sciences Po, cœur du pouvoir d'Olivier Duhamel". 8 January 2021 – via Le Monde.

• L’onde de choc de l’affaire Duhamel

• Affaire Duhamel, l’onde de choc à la Fondation des sciences politiques

• A Sciences Po, le scandale mine la fabrique de l’élite</ref>

• https://www.courrierinternational.com/article/vu-de-suisse-laffaire-kouchnerduhamel-une-grenade-degoupillee-lancee-sur-sciences-po

You can read, to answer your question, this article from France Culture: Why the Duhamel case throws Sciences Po into Turmoil?https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/la-question-du-jour/pourquoi-laffaire-duhamel-plonge-sciences-po-dans-la-tourmente

However, if you feel the length is undue, to save everyone's time, even though I disagree, I shortened myself the text and created a new page. Hope everyone can agree on this.

--Delfield (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Delfield, thank you for your shortened version which is better in tone and length. However, you wrote "Duhamel's intellectual environment at Sciences Po were silent that crime and intellectually enhanced sexual abuse against minors". Please give the exact quote for that because, silence is one thing but intellectualy enhancing incest is far more serious as allegations. Asterix757 (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

That is the main point of whole scandal and the meaning of the title "la Familia grande". You can read: https://www.marieclaire.fr/la-familia-grande-camille-kouchner-inceste-olivier-duhamel-critique,1369063.asp https://www.frustrationmagazine.fr/familia-grande/ https://www.lesinrocks.com/2021/01/11/livres/livres/la-familia-grande-de-camille-kouchner-verites-sur-linceste/ They talk about his intellectual environment in general, but in practice it was at Sciences Po and it is why it created a scandal there. It is better explained now. --Delfield (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

We asked for the quote, not your interpretation. You have changed to "Duhamel's intellectual environment justified sexual abuse against minors as a sexual liberation of children". Please give the quote. Asterix757 (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I do not see how you can understand things differently, but I removed the idea from now for a quote from the book. --Delfield (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@CommanderWaterford: I removed the sentence Asterix757 was talking about and I don't change his edits so there is a consensus now between us. Thank you. --Delfield (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Delfield, I'm OK with current version. Anyway, what matters here is not what you or I understand, but what sources say. Asterix757 (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Delfield, Asterix757 I am not quite sure if you are aware of this article currently being a subject of discussion at the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#French_speaking_editor_needed_to_look_at_possible_BLP_issues because of possibly violations against the WP:BIO Policies. Consensus does not mean only you both seem to agree on the contents. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

For non-French speakers, the relevance to Sciences Po has been discussed above in this section.

@Asterix757: To me, it is clearly what the source say, but, anyway, glad we found common ground and we don't spend more time on this. --Delfield (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@CommanderWaterford: you talk to me as if I added the section about Duhamel scandal or I would like to have such a section. I only get into this article because of several misinterpretation of sources, undue weight, and unencyclopedical tone. Now is better than before, so I don't see any problem to say it clearly here. Afterwards, I don't care if more content is deleted. I don't want to waste more time here. This scandal doesn't interest me. And one should also check the article created by Delfield: Duhamel scandal in France... Asterix757 (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Asterix757, no, I did not. I just mentioned that the section is being discussed, nothing more, nothing less. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article Duhamel scandal duplicates much of Sciences Po § Duhamel scandal and Olivier Duhamel § Accusation of incest and child abuse. Three articles covering the topic is a but much. Either most of the material at Sciences Po and Olivier Duhamel should be moved to Duhamel scandal (per WP:PROPORTION) or that article should be merged into the former two articles. What think ye? —  AjaxSmack  00:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@AjaxSmack: The page on this article is the result of a long discussion which led to putting facts in relation to Sciences Po but not the details of the allegations (meanwhile, it was admitted they are true). The source here are really related to Sciences Po and not on the character himself (as stated here and in other previous discussions). Perhaps you should remove the templates here and discuss the two other pages? See my other comment there. --Delfield (talk) 07:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I have read the discussion above and my sentiments have been expressed by others there. The templates are merely to stimulate discussion and the links point to this page merely to centralize it where all of the previous discussion has occurred, i.e. here.

I have no problem with three articles. My issues are both with the excessive content overlap and the WP:PROPORTION issues. If there is to be a standalone Duhamel scandal article, then even more of the content here (including details related to Sciences Po) should be moved to that one. Yes, the sources here deal with the Sciences Po aspects, but the hatnote can guide readers looking for these details. In general, there is undue weight given to controversies in this article, so such a content shift would help balance the article. Something like this in the Sciences Pi article would be far more proportionate:

The rest that has been cut can be moved to the Duhamel scandal article.

On the other hand, if other editors feel that there should be a lengthy section on the scandal, then the "Duhamel scandal" article is redundant and its content can merged into the Sciences Po and Olivier Duhamel articles per WP:OVERLAP. —  AjaxSmack  17:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@AjaxSmack:Thanks. So perhaps we can find consensus in a merge from Duhamel scandal to Duhamel's article and let this section as it is. You can do it as it pleases you. The text here is not too long, it reflects the weight in the sources, as the controversies. They are just many controversies and plenty plenty of articles, facts about the many controversies. The current version is a result of a long discussion (in archives, in ANI since a user has been indef blocked and on several admins' talk pages) that led to a consensus (I had put a shorter version too, but a part is from another editor and we found consensus as such). --Delfield (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

To clarify: I think the consensus should be followed as it is for this page, but I do not have a strong opinion about the two other ones. --Delfield (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC) I removed one of the templates. Personally, I am not in favor of making the section longer either (as per previous consensus): the discussion should be on the talk pages of the two other articles. --Delfield (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

No further discussions, I edited the article based on the consensus. --Delfield (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I made some statements more neutral and removed it when the same partnerships were repeated several times for each campus. There is still much detail that does not seem to fit with WP and that seem to come directly from the brochure (all the activities, etc.). Regarding the reverts, please look at my talk page. --Delfield (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Agree, seems like a massive amount of COI editing going on here.--VViking_TalkEdits 14:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest that this section should be revisited for grammar and cherry-picking. (In terms of grammar, to mention just one of the major problems: the conditional is not used to mean "allegedly" or "said to be" in English.) After fixing one sentence, I realized I should not get involved as the subpar language serves as an effective warning to readers not to take the section seriously. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I concur. The page is full of cherry-picking and is clearly the subject of POV-pushing. Any two-day "scandal" is/was reported on the page, no matter how anecdotal or derisory. I have deleted what is anecdotal to keep core (sourced) information, but there is still a lot of work to be done. EricDuflot1968 (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

As Talk said, there is a massive amount of COI editing here. The pro-Palestine protest issues have been on French TV and newspapers for weeks, with MPs physically involved and massive coverage by politicians and intellectuals, but it has been removed. The current version is a consensus established as neutral after huge debates, with many reverts by admins after a series of POV-pushing of the sort. If you find some information not well put, feel free to reformulate fairly, rather than deleting please. --Delfield (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

No. This Wikipedia page was a laughable illustration of what POV-pushing is. Allow me to remind you that, according to, POV-pushing "describe[s] the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article". This is exactly how the page was.

(1) It put Olivier Duhamel, a rapist and ex professor at the university, at the absolute forefront of the page. This preponderance is not justified. While Duhamel was indeed a professor and the president of the National Foundation of Political Science, this page is about the university itself. Why would one out of six images on this university's page be one of Olivier Duhamel, when the Duhamel scandal has its own page?

(2) The page resorted to anecdotes. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This page and this encyclopedia are not the right place to list any and every protest that happened at Sciences Po, or any two-day scandal that have no long-term consequence/repercussion. The sources do not indicate that the event is notable on the long term. If you want them to stay, please provide sources indicating that the event is notable on the long term. Otherwise, it is an anecdote and does not have its place here.

(3) I deleted unsourced sentences. These sentences were for most indicated with a "Citation needed". If you want them to remain on the article, please provide a source.

(4) I deleted useless information that only made the page longer. Mathias Vicherat is described as "former CEO of Danone, former spokesman of the French National Railways Network and former deputy cabinet director of the Mayor in Paris". That information can be found on Mathias Vicherat.

(5) Exactly as you suggested, is "reformulate[d] fairly" the paragraphs about "Reputation and criticism", which were clearly written in a non-neutral way.

Overall, I have to agree with @SashiRolls. The page was laughably bad and I was tempted to not change anything; the bad grammar already made it clear that it was misleading. There is no other way to look at it than to admit that it was not neutral, not balanced, and intended to depict that university in the least favorable way possible. I will call on administrators if such content again appears on the page. EricDuflot1968 (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The topic of "Academics from Science Po" doesn't seem notable enough for a stand-alone list. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply