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.

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.

"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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

Delfield, I don't undestand why you say this [2] was discussed ? With who ?

And I'm surprised you deleted a lot of content on this talk page that XIIIfromTOKYO wrote [3], 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)

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)

I agree that the removal made by Guy Macon (not ping you anymore) was justified as he wrote [4]. This is undue section with non encyclopedic tone. I added templates according to that. Asterix757 (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

Delfield. This is astounding how you respond and remove templates again [5] 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." [6]. Guy Macon has written "This is WP:UNDUE" [7]. And XIIIfromTOKYO wrote it clearly also but you deleted it, still this was not personal attacks, just calm discussion, I put it back [8]. Asterix757 (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

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 : [9]. Asterix757 (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but the sources are talking about Sciences Po Paris, no? A singular is used. Would you know a source about the allegations in Sciences Po Paris in particular? Thank you. --Delfield (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Further discussion on Duhamel scandal

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)