Talk:Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University

message: === History / Content of the article ===
[Instagram.com/pantheon_soronne]:If you're going to speedy this article again, please check What links here and make sure you fix the redirects to the correct location Sorbonne. If you check the history you'll see that this is where it's supposed to point. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 8 July 2005 01:30 (UTC)
This article talks mostly about the Sorbonne, not Paris 1. As the wikipedia article indicates, the University of Paris (the Sorbonne) was split in 13 universities in the early 1970s. Paris 1 is not the Sorbonne (or at least no more than the other 12), contrary to what this article implies. This seems especially inadequate, as Paris 1 was founded as a "new" university, that would be a break from the University of Paris.
:I've done a quick clean up, here is what has been removed:
: Precedent section unsigned. --Launebee (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you made nothing to delete the false statements included by Xismrd, even though you editied the article yourself after this inclusion of false statements, I did it myself. Please adopt a neutral point of view and don't let everything pass as soon as it is elogious for Paris 1. Thanks! (see above, neutral point of view section) --Launebee (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Warning: adding whithout signing of ‎86.65.191.54 --Launebee (talk) 16:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

text: False: the opposite is written here: http://www.sorbonne.fr/etablissement/les-universites/universite-pantheon-assas-paris-2/ Panthéon-Assas is the main inheritor of the Sorbonne Law Faculty --Launebee (talk) 16:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: All France know Paris 1 is la Sorbonne, but clearly not you. Don't play word game. http://www.sorbonne.fr/etablissement/les-universites/universite-pantheon-sorbonne-paris-1/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xismrd (talk • contribs) 15:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What game? Indeed, thirteen parisian universities are "La Sorbonne".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Launebee (talk • contribs) 00:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Moreover, the main inheritor of the Sorbonne, a basically humanities (or theology) institution is not Paris 1 (multidisciplinary) nor Assas (law and economics) but Paris-Sorbonne (humanities). --Launebee (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Xismrd, please stop putting false statements in the article. --Launebee (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paris 1 / Sorbonne / University of Paris 

message: [Instagram.com/pantheon_soronne]:If you're going to speedy this article again, please check What links here and make sure you fix the redirects to the correct location Sorbonne. If you check the history you'll see that this is where it's supposed to point. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 8 July 2005 01:30 (UTC)
This article talks mostly about the Sorbonne, not Paris 1. As the wikipedia article indicates, the University of Paris (the Sorbonne) was split in 13 universities in the early 1970s. Paris 1 is not the Sorbonne (or at least no more than the other 12), contrary to what this article implies. This seems especially inadequate, as Paris 1 was founded as a "new" university, that would be a break from the University of Paris.
:I've done a quick clean up, here is what has been removed:
: Precedent section unsigned. --Launebee (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you made nothing to delete the false statements included by Xismrd, even though you editied the article yourself after this inclusion of false statements, I did it myself. Please adopt a neutral point of view and don't let everything pass as soon as it is elogious for Paris 1. Thanks! (see above, neutral point of view section) --Launebee (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  History / Content of the article 

message: Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne refers to itself in its brochure (retrieved 2008-08-22) as University of Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne in English.
Please also see the naming guidelines for French universities. 
MyPOV (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Name 

message: Warnings: Do not viciously alter the official wikipedia page of the Univ Paris 1 La Sorbonne.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.65.191.54 (talk) 15:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Warning: adding whithout signing of ‎86.65.191.54 --Launebee (talk) 16:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

text: False: the opposite is written here: http://www.sorbonne.fr/etablissement/les-universites/universite-pantheon-assas-paris-2/ Panthéon-Assas is the main inheritor of the Sorbonne Law Faculty --Launebee (talk) 16:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: All France know Paris 1 is la Sorbonne, but clearly not you. Don't play word game. http://www.sorbonne.fr/etablissement/les-universites/universite-pantheon-sorbonne-paris-1/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xismrd (talk • contribs) 15:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What game? Indeed, thirteen parisian universities are "La Sorbonne".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Launebee (talk • contribs) 00:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Moreover, the main inheritor of the Sorbonne, a basically humanities (or theology) institution is not Paris 1 (multidisciplinary) nor Assas (law and economics) but Paris-Sorbonne (humanities). --Launebee (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Xismrd, please stop putting false statements in the article. --Launebee (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inheritance 

message: :Image:Paris1sorbonne.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Paris1sorbonne.jpg

message: === Source and update ===
A source would be good.  So would an update (the 200 ones have been out for ages).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.209.28 (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. The only statment (general consensus) is not accurate, this is an encyclopedia so divide the section by source makes no sense, in my opinion. --Launebee (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rankings 

message: A source would be good.  So would an update (the 200 ones have been out for ages).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.209.28 (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source and update 

message: Divide in fields is a lot more appropriate than divide in sources, it is an encyclopedia, not a catalog. --Launebee (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. The only statment (general consensus) is not accurate, this is an encyclopedia so divide the section by source makes no sense, in my opinion. --Launebee (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divisions 

message: === Library ===
"beautiful Paris 1 library which has a collection of almost three million books" Does it refer to the library of the Sorbonne, Sainte-Geneviève, the "Tolbiac" (centre Pierre Mendès-France) library, or something else? Apokrif 16:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, UFR stands for "Unité de formation et de recherche", it is an administrative unit, most universities prefer to use the old "Faculty" for their UFR. A new trend is the grouping of several UFRs in large Schools, such as the Sorbonne Law School (UFR 1 Public Affairs, UFR 5 Business Law, UFR 7 International Studies, UFR 12 Social Law and UFR 26 General Law Studies).86.65.59.50 (talk) 08:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

text: @Launebee: From whom does the university rent space for classes, then, if they have no buildings of their own? That's the common meaning of campus: the physical location of the school. —C.Fred (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @C.Fred: French universities have their own building, but nobody lives there, like in the campuses in the US. Is it still actually a "campus"? --Launebee (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @Launebee: Yes, if it's the location where instruction takes place. I know several schools that do not have student housing (dormitories) but still have a campus where classes are taught. —C.Fred (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @C.Fred: OK, thank you! --Launebee (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unjustified statements 

message: "beautiful Paris 1 library which has a collection of almost three million books" Does it refer to the library of the Sorbonne, Sainte-Geneviève, the "Tolbiac" (centre Pierre Mendès-France) library, or something else? Apokrif 16:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Library 

message: Use of an acronym w/o explanation is especially unfortunate in an English-language article about a non-English-language institution. Does "UFRs" refer to "Unitiés de formation et de researche" as in some Francophone African institutions I found by Googling? If so, that should be stated at first appearance; if not, the actual meaning should be given.
Thanks to whoever clears this up! GeorgeTSLC (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, UFR stands for "Unité de formation et de recherche", it is an administrative unit, most universities prefer to use the old "Faculty" for their UFR. A new trend is the grouping of several UFRs in large Schools, such as the Sorbonne Law School (UFR 1 Public Affairs, UFR 5 Business Law, UFR 7 International Studies, UFR 12 Social Law and UFR 26 General Law Studies).86.65.59.50 (talk) 08:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  UFRs 

message: This article lacks sources. I added some sources but put a source banner where it lacks the most.
--Launebee (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacking of sources 

message: I added a neutrality templates for the international section: highly elogious but with no source.
--Launebee (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  International section 

message: Parisian universities have no campus, do not use that word in the text.
--Launebee (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @Launebee: From whom does the university rent space for classes, then, if they have no buildings of their own? That's the common meaning of campus: the physical location of the school. —C.Fred (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @C.Fred: French universities have their own building, but nobody lives there, like in the campuses in the US. Is it still actually a "campus"? --Launebee (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @Launebee: Yes, if it's the location where instruction takes place. I know several schools that do not have student housing (dormitories) but still have a campus where classes are taught. —C.Fred (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @C.Fred: OK, thank you! --Launebee (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campus 

message: === Vandalism / False statments repetitly added ===
Someone tries to undo all the improvements of the article with source and justification each time, without any explanation. If you disagree with one changing, please say why. --Launebee (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Launebee. During the last month, you have edited the article Pantheon-Sorbonne University in a biased way. The article needs to be rewritten and restructured but having in mind the NPOV. The same applies to the article to Panthéon-Assas University, although in a different sense. --73.212.115.205 (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear user, all the changes I put were followed by sources. I added sources even on already existing statments. It is true this article lacks sources, but not my editing. --Launebee (talk) 10:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Dear Midals02, about the rankings, it is because in France, there is no global ranking, they do not like rankings. You have then to show all the specific rankings to "prove" that globally, it has obviously the first place for graduate degrees. To detemine which is second, I personally counted all the results, made additions, etc. It seems to be the utility of an encyclopedia to summarize datas, like it is done here. But you have right, it is very specific to France, it would not have been the same for universities from others countries!--Launebee (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

text: I don't find it misleading. Or at least, not as much misleading as two statements you support in the Panthéon-Assas University article that say: "Panthéon-Assas University has always been ranked first in law in national rankings[citation needed] and calls itself "the top faculty of law in France".", and "Panthéon-Assas University has always been ranked first in law in national rankings but is not internationally well known by the public."--Kanon6996 (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Those two sentences in another article (so please discuss them there - you tend to discuss things on the wrong page) are only facts with references (they were under, you just added the "citation needed", I put it once again then). The sentence I quote have the reader think that Paris 1 is globally in the top 100. --Launebee (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Dear Kanon6996, because you made nothing to delete the false statements included by Xismrd, even though you editied the article yourself after this inclusion of false statements, I did it myself. Please adopt a neutral point of view and don't let everything pass as soon as it is elogious for Paris 1. Thanks! --Launebee (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Please also consider that before I came to edit this article, it was deeply biased: , in great part because of your editing. I just put it in a encyclopedical aspect. --Launebee (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral point of view 

message: Someone tries to undo all the improvements of the article with source and justification each time, without any explanation. If you disagree with one changing, please say why. --Launebee (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Launebee. During the last month, you have edited the article Pantheon-Sorbonne University in a biased way. The article needs to be rewritten and restructured but having in mind the NPOV. The same applies to the article to Panthéon-Assas University, although in a different sense. --73.212.115.205 (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear user, all the changes I put were followed by sources. I added sources even on already existing statments. It is true this article lacks sources, but not my editing. --Launebee (talk) 10:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Dear Midals02, about the rankings, it is because in France, there is no global ranking, they do not like rankings. You have then to show all the specific rankings to "prove" that globally, it has obviously the first place for graduate degrees. To detemine which is second, I personally counted all the results, made additions, etc. It seems to be the utility of an encyclopedia to summarize datas, like it is done here. But you have right, it is very specific to France, it would not have been the same for universities from others countries!--Launebee (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism / False statments repetitly added 

message: In Law, only a few of the parisian professors went to Panthéon-Sorbonne, says Cornac. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanon6996 (talk • contribs) 
--Launebee (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Few parisian professors 

message: @C.Fred:What do you think of this sentence ? : "It was established in 1971 as one of the main inheritors of the historical University of Paris (Sorbonne University) after the division of the world's second oldest academic institution." 
--Launebee (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't find it misleading. Or at least, not as much misleading as two statements you support in the Panthéon-Assas University article that say: "Panthéon-Assas University has always been ranked first in law in national rankings[citation needed] and calls itself "the top faculty of law in France".", and "Panthéon-Assas University has always been ranked first in law in national rankings but is not internationally well known by the public."--Kanon6996 (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Those two sentences in another article (so please discuss them there - you tend to discuss things on the wrong page) are only facts with references (they were under, you just added the "citation needed", I put it once again then). The sentence I quote have the reader think that Paris 1 is globally in the top 100. --Launebee (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of the main inheritor of the Sorbonne 

message: @Kanon6996: you revert my edition but you don't talk. There is no consensus about having a catalog aspect in Wikipedia. --Launebee (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Kanon6996, because you made nothing to delete the false statements included by Xismrd, even though you editied the article yourself after this inclusion of false statements, I did it myself. Please adopt a neutral point of view and don't let everything pass as soon as it is elogious for Paris 1. Thanks! --Launebee (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Please also consider that before I came to edit this article, it was deeply biased: , in great part because of your editing. I just put it in a encyclopedical aspect. --Launebee (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refusal to talk / "Fallacious ad hominem attacks" 

message: , this edit seems to remove content for no reason given. The removed content appears encyclopedic and at least some of it is properly sourced. How is the truncated introduction more neutral? Andrewa (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of content

message: Hello User:EpéeDeLaProvidence and User:Xuo Tran:
I see a lot of complaints about one another. I see talk of investigation and tribunal judgement and addressing grievances, etc.
This is an encyclopedia, not a court of law.
Let's drop all of this and focus on building the article.
See you at the next thread.
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Put the past behind us 

message: Hi User:EpéeDeLaProvidence and User:Xuo Tran and others:
So, what do you want in the article, out of the article, etc.
Take it bit by bit. One thing at a time. Say what you want and why. Keep it concise. Let's sort it out.
What is the first individual matter to discuss?
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In any text meaning is also communicated through framing. The current framing of the article suggests that the creation of the University was almost a pet project of a couple of professors, using their personal and individual background to bring the name Sorbonne and Panthéon to the new institution. This is historically inaccurate and simply preposterous: this is one of the biggest universities of one of the oldest and most strictly regulated higher educational systems in the world. Both the Panthéon and Sorbonne are highly sensitive and central symbols of the french State. To suggest that the University was allowed to take those names because of the previous career of some civil servants (professors) involved in its administration, is simply ridiculous.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MapcheckerParis (talk • contribs) 01:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

text: The framing does not suggest that at all and follows what is said in the source  --Xuo Tran (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

text: By reading the history of this talk page I learn that you don't care about the content of the article, just about its stability (!). You even revert back my correction on the Sorbonne Inter University Library, reinstating a FALSE fact in the article, to keep it stable. Hopefully this thread will guide whoever in the future has the time to waste and nothing better to do than negotiating the truth with wikipedia's bizarre governance structure.
- The BIS is managed by Panthéon Sorbonne.
- The names Panthéon and Sorbonne (as well as the operations of the university on those sites) are not there because some professors that worked in it after 1971 came from those faculties. 
- The establishment of the University DID follow the Faure law of november 12, 1968
- The University of Paris WAS divided into 9 and then 13 universities, some of which maintained operations in the historical sites and hence decided to keep the name Sorbonne (or Panthéon).
As the first matter to discuss I would raise the issue of how can an individual user block the editing of an article, even pushing false information into it? The obligation to reach consensus gives this person effectively a veto power, based on what?
MapcheckerParis (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

text: For the record, the modifications by EpéeDeLaProvidence  were made.  One editor objected. I reverted as disputed edits. EpéeDeLaProvidence restored them. I blocked EpéeDeLaProvidence for 2 weeks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I still obviously disagree. --Xuo Tran (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: The next thread - improving the article / veto power over the article 

message: Should the article and the photo description mention "administered by Panthéon-Sorbonne" ? Should "administered by Sorbonne University" be removed ? MapcheckerParis (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll go ahead and make the change. MapcheckerParis (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC about the administration of the Sorbonne library 

message: Anna Frodesiak reverted many times sock edits wanting to force a version of the introduction of this article against the last consensus in talk page ( but appear to be now blocked in China. I reverted the disputed parts of the page to the last consensus. It seems one alumni of Paris 1 is on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Paris_1_Pantheon-Sorbonne&diff=847704490&oldid=847578991
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Paris_1_Pantheon-Sorbonne&diff=845660318&oldid=845609210
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Paris_1_Pantheon-Sorbonne&diff=843109751&oldid=843070795
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Paris_1_Pantheon-Sorbonne&diff=843015372&oldid=843014666
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Paris_1_Pantheon-Sorbonne&diff=842131331&oldid=842093794
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Paris_1_Pantheon-Sorbonne&diff=841531951&oldid=841440480
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Paris_1_Pantheon-Sorbonne&diff=841140570&oldid=841068229
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Paris_1_Pantheon-Sorbonne&diff=839331016&oldid=839325875
--Xuo Tran (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruptive editing