Talk:Sciences Po

Olivier Duhamel and sexual violence

An entire section added has been written inaccuratly pretending facts that are not in the sources and is using also poor source (Gala). It's like a gossip article. I added some tags. Asterix757 (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not surprised, and I think @MePhisto: won't be either.

Junk sources, fraudulent use of references, and abusive promotion of Paris Assas University. Nothing New. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

To both of you: It is all over the news. Gala refuses to publish stolen pictures, so is respectable to me, but there are many many sources. I am changing the sources. XIII: Instead of making once again personal attacks, you could make yourself useful and provide better sources.

"law of silence" is a translation for "omerta", used in many articles, if you have another one, please let me know.

The section is about the policy of Science Po regarding sexual violence. Of course, there is a policy, and the question is to know if this is the right one. Many of the newspaper articles are dealing with Science Po as an institution and their response to sexual violence. The Duhamel story is only part of the problem, even if it made the newspaper talk about it.

https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2021/01/08/sciences-po-c-ur-du-pouvoir-d-olivier-duhamel-ebranle-par-sa-chute_6065551_3224.html

https://www.leparisien.fr/culture-loisirs/sexe-drogue-et-sciences-po-17-05-2015-4776997.php

The accusations come from many people, the first sentence is meant as a summary. I made it shorter, I hope this satisfies everyone now.

--Delfield (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Asterix757, I don't know that Gala is a poor source, you'd have to get a consensus for that at WP:RSN, but Le Monde is more than acceptable. XIIIfromTOKYO, your personal attacks are unacceptable, and your comments untrue. Delfield, the content you entered is WAY excessive: it needs to be seriously condensed, and it needs to focus on the subject of the article, and not on Duhamel. If you don't do that, someone else will--or they may remove it altogether as WP:UNDUE. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes "Le Monde" is good source, but it has been used inaccuratly. And why this statement from NYT I added has been deleted : "Following Oliver Duhamel's scandal, Sciences Po issued a statement condemning "all forms of sexualized violence" and declaring "its shock and astonishment". It also stated: “The fight against sexual and gender-based violence is at the heart of our institution’s core values and actions.” Obviously this is not a neutral move. I will get it back. Asterix757 (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Drmies: Thanks for the feedback, it makes sense.

Asterix757: My bad for the deleted sentence about the statement from the school. You changed the whole structure (and are doing it again) so it is difficult to bring about a consensus without missing something (I started from my version, so I forgot to add this sentence). I disagree with some failed verifications you saw, but I will look at them (some where true in your last edit later, and I corrected the sentence) and let you know.

--Delfield (talk) 12:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Asterix757: I guess you would agree with the current version, that is basically your version, but shortened? The only thing is the title: the controversy in the title is about Sciences Po itself. If you want to propose another title, I am of course open to it. --Delfield (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I still fail to see why most of the coverage of these controversies are related to that school. A large part of the coverage has nothing to do with that school. Sure, some might consider that allegations of "controversial sex life", "drugs", "death in a hotel in suspicious circumstances", "orgies with young women", "fellations", "death in a swimming pool, possibly by suicide", "law of silence" are encyclopedic (did I missed something ?). But strangely enought, even the article about Olivier Duhamel only mention that controversy in one sentence. Other institution have been critized (the Socialist Party for exemple[1]). But it's only mentionned on this article. Why ? Anyway, that's way past WP:UNDUE. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Delfield ; thanks for your message and recent contribution, i think the section is now factually correct regarding the sources. But question now is indeed how much details and importance one gives. I agree with XIIIfromTOKYO, the controversy should may be developped on Olivier Duhamel's page, not so much here. Asterix757 (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Good. I support moving everything about Olivier Duhamel controversy to Olivier Duhamel's article, and keep nothing here. Actual consequences for that school are yet to be seen. So let the dust settle, and see if anything comes out of it. Drmies already said that anyone "may remove it altogether as WP:UNDUE" and I share that view. Asterix757 feel free to (re)move everything that you don't think is relevant.

The more I look at it, the less I understand why so many sordid details have been added to that school's article. I don't see the point, from an encyclopedic point of view that is. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

XIIIfromTOKYO, I don't like to spend so much time on this kind of disgusting controversies... My aim was to correct/prevent misinterpretation of sources. Maybe you can edit you too now. Asterix757 (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

"Misinterpretation of sources" is indeed a serious issue on that article. Thanks for making more contributors aware of that . XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It's always better a reach a consensus on the talk page, than to rush to the edit the article and claim that a consensus, even if other contributors have not been consulted. And a consensus has indeed been reached already at WP:CSECTION : "Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism".

As I see it :

• The first paragraphe of Attitude (...) violence should be moved to History#1997-2012: the Richard Descoings era. WP:UNDUE should prevail to keep a neutral coverage.
• The second paragraphe of Attitude (...) violence (for some reason the longest) should be removed from the article, and added to the article Olivier Duhamel. It has nothing to do with the school.
• The third paragraphe of Attitude (...) violence should be moved to History:2013–2022: reorganization and development under Frédéric Mion. Again, WP:UNDUE should prevail, and cuts are necessary. The school might have been "shaken", but so far, it has lead only to the resignations of Olivier Duhamel (and today Marc Guillaume).

It seems that Controversies#Political and financial scandals should also be moved to the History sections, and rewritten as WP:UNDUE. But that's for an other time. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

XIIIfromTOKYO, I agree whith all what you propose. Asterix757 (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I shortened a section that had undue weight, but now the length of the controversy section is due to the fact that there are many controversies. Regarding the sexual violence section, it sticks with the importance of this according to the sources, so it is not undue weight. --Delfield (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

You have removed 2,037 bytes from the "Access to the Bar since 2007 and creation of a "law school" in 2009" part, and then added 4,864 bytes on the "Attitude toward sexual violence and Duhamel scandal", and then added a brand new 1000 bytes long "Miscelaneous" controversy section. I haven't attended a math class fo a long time, be it seems that you have expended the controversy section. By a lot.

The rule WP:CSECTION hase already been explained : "Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism".

So again, it's always better to reach a consensus on the talk page, and then edit the article. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of Assas university

I fail to find a reference to back the following claim: "Many of the alumni before the 1990s have completed a degree in Sciences Po besides a core degree in a traditional university, in particular the Paris Law School, but it has more recently become the main school of its students".

It claims that "many" of these alumni were in fact enrolled at Paris Law School/Paris-Assas University, and that the latter was their real alma mater. Science Po is thus represented as only a side trainning, and not the bona fide school until the 1990's.

Delfield added that to the article in the midst of the Duhamel controversy. [2].

It was easy to miss, and @Drmies: did so. Drmies, you input is also welcome on that. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I have nothing to offer on this. If this is your evidence that the other editor is plugging their school, it's very thin. If it's unverified, cut it. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The SPI Investigation is already pretty long. Other contributors like @MePhisto: came to the same conclusions, that is to say that Launabee/Delfield has been"conspicuously promoting the Assas Law School, while smearing Sciences Po"[3]. The edit that I have spotted is only one of the many attempts to promote Assas University that have occured in the past years.

Cutting it from the article will only lead to a new edit war. The only way to put an end to that kind of slowpush agenda is to document it. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Removed by Drmies, with the comment "this is just blah blah (...)" [4]. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Additionnal references to Assas University and its Paris Law School have been added by Delfield today [5]. I'm thinking about François Hollande for exemple, who attended 4 colleges ; for some reason, only Assas University is mentionned, but not HEC or the ENA.

The openning statement is now "it has been customary to follow a Institut d’Études politiques as an addition to the Paris Law Faculty therefore many of these graduates were also graduates of the latter". A reference is provided[6], but there is nothing in it that support the claim. It is said that among the first generation, those born between 1860-1890, attending also the faculty of law was a common practise. But nothing is said about the following generations. So Delfield also introduced a misleading claim.

XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Behaviour

@Drmies: Nothing was decided there, like with the previous ANI alerts, but could we at least clean up this page of personal attacks so that it can be focused on content? --Delfield (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

My comments are not dirty things that need to be, as you said, "cleaned", thank you. As you might know, stereotypes about French people include having a poor hygiene, so that choice of words is a bit unfortunate.

Adminds didn't take any action, so why would you ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: by the way, Wikipedia:Canvassing is "generally considered disruptive behavior". So notifying only one other contributor (and one that has not been involved in the writing process) can be considered as a disruptive behavior. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

XIIIfromTOKYO, I have been cleaning up personal attacks from talk pages for a decade or more and will continue to do so; I happen to use the same verb as Delfield. Don't push the point. If you want to condemn Delfield's post as canvassing, try to get a consensus at ANI: good luck. Delfield, I don't see any personal attacks, besides the already mentioned and condemned remarks about your supposed bias, which I believe I've commented on: that's over, let it go. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Drmies: ok for the supposed bias comments. Could you choose a neutral title for this section, because it is changed quite chaotically? Thanks! --Delfield (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

ANI --Delfield (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Former lecturers

Is there any example of Wikipedia pages containing names of temporary lecturers? Only the names of people who are actually members of the institution should be listed in my opinion. --Delfield (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Tone

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

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)

Most of that part is only loosely connected to Science-Po. As already explained per WP:CSECTION : "Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism"

• The first paragraphe of Attitude (...) violence should be moved to History#1997-2012: the Richard Descoings era. WP:UNDUE should prevail to keep a neutral coverage.
• The second paragraphe of Attitude (...) violence (for some reason the longest) should be removed from the article, and added to the article Olivier Duhamel. It has nothing to do with the school.
• The third paragraphe of Attitude (...) violence should be moved to History:2013–2022: reorganization and development under Frédéric Mion. Again, WP:UNDUE should prevail, and cuts are necessary. The school might have been "shaken", but so far, it has lead only to the resignations of Olivier Duhamel (and today Marc Guillaume).

It seems that Controversies#Political and financial scandals should also be moved to the History sections, and rewritten as WP:UNDUE. But that's for an other time.XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

Answers are to be put in the chronological order.

There is a consensus against you Delfield. If you ask for other contributors comments, why don't you take them into account ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source

I have checked the first reference that Delfield has added today[7]. Compare :

• "Hundreds of students at the Sciences Po university and the network of ten affiliated schools have unleashed a torrent of rape and sexual abuse allegations against France’s top educational establishment. (...) Under the #sciencesporcs — science pigs — (...) The directors of several of the provincial establishments, including those in Strasbourg, Toulouse and Bordeaux(...)" (The Times)
• "Following the Duhamel scandal, hundreds of students and former students that they were raped or were the victims of sexual abuse at Sciences Po but that the direction of Sciences Po did not act appropriately. A hashtag #SciencesPorcs ("Sciences Pigs", similar to the French #Meetoo hashtag #Balancetonporcs) has been widely used to do so." (Delfield)

The Times article is about Science Po and the ten Instituts d'études politiques, colleges independant from Science Po, and Delfield misrepresents it, claiming that it is only about Sciences Po. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

ANI. --Delfield (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Attitude toward sexual violence

Thanks Asterix757 for your improvements. You are right, the hundreds were referring to a group of institutes. However, the articles in the source point out the case of Sciences Po, so perhaps there would be a way to improve the sentence here. --Delfield (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Sciences Po is not only Sciences Po Paris, see fr:Sciences Po and fr:Institut d'études politiques. Asterix757 (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

See also the tweets given as the beginning by The Week : [8]. Asterix757 (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Asterix757 is clearly right. The references clearly describe fr:Sciences Po and the 10 other fr:Institut d'études politiques

The Times "Sciences Po university and the network of ten affiliated schools(...) The directors of several of the provincial establishments, including those in Strasbourg, Toulouse and Bordeaux"[9]

The Week "Institute of Political Studies and its network of ten affiliated schools"[10].

The names of the 10 other schools are also clearly mentionned in the tweets.

On top of that, the BBC article also indicate that "France has been shaken by a series of incest allegations involving public figures over the past few weeks," and also that "The Duhamel affair has also reverberated far beyond one family or one college in opening up a conversation about incest. Incest in France(...)"[11]. So clearly, the BBC claims that that affair is not limitated to Sciences Po. But once used in the article, only what fits in the narrative is mentioned, contradictory statements are ignored. That's Wikipedia:Cherrypicking. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)