Talk:Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

CV

On his personal website he writes ...

Biographie (bis 2002):

1. Wehrdienst bei den Gebirgsjägern in Mittenwald, Stabsunteroffizier der Reserve
2. Studium der Rechts- und Politikwissenschaften
3. Leitung des Familienbetriebes in München und Berlin, berufliche Stationen in Frankfurt und New York
4. Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter der Guttenberg GmbH, München (bis 2002)
5. Mitglied im Aufsichtsrat der Rhön-Klinikum AG (bis 2002)
6. Freier Journalist bei der Tageszeitung DIE WELT (bis 2002)

re 1. This is true (national service)

re 2. This is true (studies), although he did not complete these studies by passing the second state examination.

re 3. Investigative journalists have commented on the "berufliche Stationen in Frankfurt und New York", suggesting that these were merely short work experience episodes (internships) in legal chambers in these cities.

re 4. The demands placed upon him in this position have been estimated to have been relatively low.

re 5. During his time as a member of the Aufsichtsrat at Rhön-Klinikum a massive donation was made to the University to which he submitted his doctoral thesis.

re 6. The FAZ wrote that his output as a 'journalist' (another internship, for a matter of weeks at "Die Welt", followed by a few months as a freelance writer) was limited to 8 short articles, 4 written by Guttenberg alone, 4 written in conjunction with a (real?) journalist.

This is from memory - perhaps others can help to flesh it out with references etc., so that it can be added to the article. --TraceyR (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

re 2.: AFAIK, he didn't complete his political science degree.Quest09 (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Does this mean that he isn't Dipl. Jur. or whatever? Has he an academic qualification? --TraceyR (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Some universities award the degree of Dipl.-Jur. or Mag. jur. at that point, but I could find no evidence that that is the case in Bayreuth. So presumably he does not hold an academic degree. Hans Adler 17:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I got the impression that he was studying two independent degrees: law and political science. He studied law up to the first law state examination (at least passing it), but didn't finish his political science degree. Quest09 (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems that blogger Etienne Rheindahlen 'smelled a rat' (#3, #4 and #6 at least) in the Guttenberg CV as early as February 2009. See "Pimp up your Lebenslauf". Mea culpa - I didn't name the source! I found this on German Wikipedia! --TraceyR (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Concerning his degree. He has the first law state examination. I do not think universities normally award Mag. jur. or such. Clumpytree (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Should the information that he exaggerated his achievements in his CV (with known examples) be added to the article? On the one hand, this is something which is fairly common i.e. not notable; on the other hand it is rarely so blantantly obvious in a notable (in WP terms) subject. --TraceyR (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

If you can explain what he exaggerated and name a reliable source, yes. 212.169.189.51 (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the first state examination has an "expiration date". Unless you complete your second state examination within a certain number of years (five, I believe), the first one becomes invalid. If this information is true, by this time even his first state examination is not worth a straw. --Anna (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Is he still a politician?

I believe that Guttenberg has resigned from all political offices (to concentrate on writing his memoirs). Is he therefore no longer a politician? If not, the intro needs to reflect this change. --TraceyR (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure he is still a politician, and in fact he is still one of the more popular politicians. I guess he just needs to keep a low profile for some time before he can come back and his supporters can insist that it is unfair to speak about the plagiarism affair. German politicians, especially from that party, have had comebacks after worse scandals. Hans Adler 21:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It comes down to the definition, I suppose. Is he perhaps an ex-politician? A disgraced ex-politician? A retired politician? A soon-to-be-conviscted-for-fraudulent-behaviour ex-politician?

Wordnetweb at Princeton defines "politician" as

1. a leader engaged in civil administration
2. a person active in party politics
3. a schemer who tries to gain advantage in an organization in sly or underhanded ways

The first two do not seem to apply. --TraceyR (talk) 07:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I am in no way, shape or form a supporter of Guttenberg myself, but I don't think it would be appropriate to indicate that he is not a politician at the moment. He is certainly still a member of the CSU, and I believe he is still active in the CSU (and even CDU) campaigns. (There are a number of state elections this year, plus a federal election.) I just checked the articles of a number of other politicians who have been out of office for a long time, and we still call them politicians, as we should. Hans Adler 07:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Section "Personal life"

Is this section encyclopaedic? It contains unsourced statements and comprises largely gossip and trivia. I suggest that the section be removed. --TraceyR (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think this stuff is encyclopedic, absurd as it is (especially the stuff about AC/DC). This is closely connected to his immense popularity, and I suspect (and should be able to provide RS for the speculation, if necessary) that it has more to do with the way he uses the media than with his actual personal life. (Of course growing up under such circumstances is also likely to create a certain sense of entitlement. See the earlier thesis plagiarism case of a descendant of the last Kaiser.)

That is not to say that the title and focus of this section is necessarily ideal. But this is a complicated question. Hans Adler 21:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest then that we remove the unsourced stuff, unless reliable sources can be found. He may well like to play tennis but is this really important enough to mention? --TraceyR (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I never heard about the hunting, skiing and tennis and it doesn't seem noteworthy at all. I don't insist on any of the other stuff either, I am just saying it seems reasonable to me as it was so widely reported or remarked upon. But the sobriety of the German article wouldn't hurt. There is certainly too much nobility cruft in this article, presented from an enthusiastic rather than neutral POV. Hans Adler 07:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism on purpose

The University of Bayreuth has finished its investigation and has officially concluded that Guttenberg plagiarized intentionally. Source--77.181.130.80 (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Did he write it himself or did he engage a ghostwriter to do it for him? The latter possibility would perhaps explain his initial reaction ("abstruse"), which indicated that he wasn't familiar with the extent to which the work of others had been copied. If and when the ghostwriter is identified, there'll be another chapter to this dishonourable story. --TraceyR (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I read in an unreliable source about a story that circulates in the Bavarian parliament. Something about an incompetent intern at a management consultancy in Hamburg. But I don't know if this ever reached reliable sources. If it didn't then of course that's an indication that the story is false or at least unverifiable. Hans Adler 13:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there was a ghostwriter who wrote some text but no normal ghostwriter had access to the 30+ pages that were taken from the sources from the German Bundestag and inserted into the thesis. So a large enough portion of the plagiarism was almost certainly with his knowledge and apparently deliberately planned. Richiez (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It could be that some of his staff (who also wrote speeches for him as member of the parlarment) wrote some of the chapters, but I also do not think that an external ghostwriter wrote the whole thesis. - Clumpytree (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The "ghostwriter" theory is very popular among the German media, but there is no official confirmation, and the University of Bayreuth stated that it's not within the scope of their investigation to speculate about the possibility of a ghostwriter. What's also of note is that while most German media quickly jumped onto the Guttenberg-bashing bandwagon, Bild kept supporting him, initially not reporting on the affair at all, then downplaying it and declaring its solidarity with "Germany's most popular politician". Meta-journalists are viewing Guttenberg's ultimate resignation as an indication for the waning political power of Bild, especially with the internet public as its main opponent.--217.187.44.85 (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A "normal" ghostwriter could have received the Bundestag essays e.g. via an anonymous email account. In fact, it would be quite feasible for the ghostwriter to write to Guttenberg, requesting that he get the research services to write a few chapters; or maybe Guttenberg negotiated a reduction - "if I get the Bundestag researchers to write a couple of chapters, you can reduce your fee". No problem there. My money is still (figuratively) on the ghostwriter scenario. As for Bild losing political power, not even 'Die Zeitung' could prop up Guttenberg when the truth started to come into the open. BTW, the Bayreuth University report (quite rightly) acknowledges the work done by the Guttenplag.wiki contributors in exposing the extent of the plagiarism. --TraceyR (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing investigation?

The article states about the plagiarism that "The matter is the subject of ongoing investigation". Is this still the case? --TraceyR (talk) 06:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

While the matter is still being investigated by the local district attorney's office in Hof (Bavaria), the President of the Bundestag already declared in April that the German Parliament would not press criminal charges against Guttenberg. Dewritech (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Doktor vs. PhD

There may be some confusion here. Guttenbergs degree was a "Dr. Jur.", i.e. a doctor of jurisprudence. This is a real doctoral degree, unlike the US J.D., which is a better bachelor. In some parts of the English-speaking worlds, nearly all doctorates in the arts and sciences are PhDs (which strictly speaking is a doctor of philosophy). In Germany, there is a whole list of doctoral level degrees, all nominally at the same academic level. You can take a look at de:Doktor#Deutschland_2. Strictly speaking, calling a German dissertation in law a PhD-Thesis is wrong. It is a doctoral thesis, however. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Stephan, can you please write en:Doctor#Germany_2 ? Kittybrewster ☎ 16:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There is already Doctor (title)#Germany. I will expand it a bit. Hans Adler 16:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

A doctor of philosophy is someone who loves wisdom, which strictly speaking does not have to be someone restricted to the field of enquiry which we commonly describe as "Philosophy", but who could be studying any area of science, humanities or arts. If someone has a "real doctoral degree" than translating it with PhD would be reasonable. If it is only something comparable to an MD or JD, than it is no PhD. If Guttenbergs thesis had not been plagiarised, than it would have been a "real doctorate" worthy to be translated as "PhD". But yes, a German doctor could be less than an anglo-saxon PhD, therefore it might be safer not to translate it. Clumpytree (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in most fields (probably including law) a German doctorate tends to me more than a PhD. In health-related fields it's usually less. While people sometimes translate a German doctorate as PhD, it's not ideal to do so. You can see here how the German Academic Exchange Service deals with this. Hans Adler 18:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

A Juris Doctor (J.D.) is indeed a "real" doctoral degree in the United States. Whatever you meant by "better bachelor" is not clear without context. Perhaps you meant to say that it is not a research doctorate? There is a difference, but non-research doctoral degrees are still doctoral degrees. --98.176.34.215 (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a terminal academic degree, but a first professional degree. And it does not, usually, require a dissertation. The German Dr. Jur. is more equivalent to a LL.M. or even a J.S.D. (at least in theory, if not in Guttenberg's case). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with/understand/concede all of that. Just disagreeing with the idea of a J.D. being called something other than a "(real) doctoral degree" in English.  :-) --98.176.34.215 (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Awards

Hi, in the Awards-section it says: "That same year, Guttenberg received the Quadriga Award on behalf of the Bundeswehr". Here's what it says on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadriga_(award)#2010 about who won the award "Die Bundeswehr, represented by Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg and Lieutenant General Günter Weiler : Service of Responsibility". The article on the award is correct, not the article on Guttenberg. (the German page on Guttenberg does not list this award either and reference 223 has it wrong). See also http://www.diequadriga.com/ which is in German and English.

Yes, the wording did create the impression that he received the Quadriga award personally. I have made some changes. Is it OK now? The bigger question is whether this award should be mentioned at all. I think that I'll remove it from the Awards section, unless someone objects, since it wasn't something that was awarded to him for something he did. --TraceyR (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The Awardee overview 2003 - 2009 (see Award Winners) lists Guttenberg himself. -- Dewritech (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It shows his photo, but the text (under "mehr") reads "Dienst der Verantwortung: Preisträger: Die Bundeswehr vertreten durch Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg und ...". The award was given to the Bundeswehr, not to Guttenberg, who received the award on its behalf. The film on the website portrays various serving soldiers in different theatres of operation, thus also making it clear that the award was made to the Bundeswehr, not to any individual and certainly not to Guttenberg. --TraceyR (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The award was given to the German Army, Guttenberg as the minister of defence was one of the representatives accepting it on behalf of the organisation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

So should it be removed from the article, since it wasn't awarded to Guttenberg? It could deserve a mention on the Bundeswehr article, although I have no idea as to the notability of this award. --TraceyR (talk) 08:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

In Germany the award is notable. And as stated before, Guttenberg received the Quadriga Award on behalf of the Bundeswehr - even though the official site lists Guttenberg himself as awardee (see Award Winners, below Gorbachev). -- Dewritech (talk) 09:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It is strange that they have got it wrong on their own website! --TraceyR (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Rather, this seems to be a clear indicator that Guttenberg's role in this award selection was a different one than that of an "accidental" prize recipient who simply happened to be the right person protocol-wise to accept this honor. -- Dewritech (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand it might indicate that it's hard to provide a portrait of the awardee (if that's the correct word) when it's an army or some other type of organisation. The website is very clear in stating that the award was given to the Bundeswehr, not awarded jointly to the minister and the general. --TraceyR (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course, one should not create the impression that Guttenberg received this award in a purely personal capacity. That being said, in previous award announcements the jury committee did indeed limit itself to mentioning just the name of an organization. In that sense, the fact that Guttenberg was specifically mentioned in the award announcement is a clear indication that the Bundeswehr received this award while specifically under Guttenbergs's command. -- Dewritech (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't read to much into that page - it's not entirely unlikely that this addition was made by a team assistant or student intern without anybody giving a second thought about the exact phrasing. This is a web page, not a scientific paper... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

One can't exclude that... -- Dewritech (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please check section "Education and professional background". Today's version is falling for the legend

The article is totally falling for KT's PR story. Please check the German article for a clearer description.

Nearly all claimed activities before his political career are wildly exaggerated or even proven false. This guy is very professional in selling himself. Whoever takes a closer look will clearly see the story told by Guttenberg is mainly based on hot air. The first thing coming to my mind was "This is Catch me if you can RL". If you are speaking German, please check the following sources:

• Roland Preuß/Tanjev Schultz: Guttenbergs Fall. Der Skandal und seine Folgen für Politik und Gesellschaft, Gütersloh 2011, ISBN 978-3-579-06672-1 ("The decline of Guttenberg. The scandal and its impact on politics and society")
• Oliver Lepsius / Reinhart Meyer-Kalkus (Hrsg.): Inszenierung als Beruf. Der Fall Guttenberg. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main 2011, ISBN 978-3-518-06208-1 ("[Political] staging as a profession. The case of Guttenberg")

If you doubt the statements given above, please check with the :de article de:Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg on it's discussion page. Given statements are basic consens with majority of the German author working on the very well sourced and detailed German version..de:Plagiatsaffäre Guttenberg is the :de article on the scandal. 91.39.100.202 (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

By all means make any corrections you think are necessary and which can be backed up by reliable sources (e.g. by the two books you mention, which are unlikely to be accessible to most UK/USA editors). I think that you'll find a lot of issues e.g. about the exaggerations in his CV (his "berufliche Stationen" spring to mind) in archives of this talk page. Much of that has yet to find its way into the article, so your help would be appreciated. --TraceyR (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

How about this (plagiarised, appropriately, from German Wikipedia!)

Business experience before entering politics

Guttenberg was employed in 1994, during his time at university, in the family's forestry administration business ("Forstverwaltung Guttenberg") as well as, until November 2003, as Managing Partner ("Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter") of Guttenberg GmbH in Munich, which managed the family investments, and until September 2004 CEO of his own KT-Kapitalverwaltung GbR in Munich. From 1996 until 2002 he was a member of the Supervisory Board of the company Rhön-Klinikum AG, of which his family held 26.5% of the stock capital. In March 2002, shortly before Guttenberg went into politics, the stock was sold to the HypoVereinsbank for 260 million Euro.

After his appointment as a Minister in the Federal Government, Guttenberg described his business experience in an interview as follows: "Before entering politics I was engaged in business, was active, held responsibility in the family business." The televison magazine programme Panorama criticised this statement as exaggeration, due to this company's relatively low annual turnover of e.g. 25.000 Euro in 2000, with a total staff numbering some three people, according to the credit rating agency Creditreform, and the fact that the company was wound up in 2004.

In addition to this, Guttenberg was considered to have created the impression that he took part in the stock market launch of Rhön-Klinikum AG in 1989: at this time Guttenberg was 17 years of age, and later, as a member of the Supervisory Board, he was not involved in business operations.

He was also accused of exaggeration in his CV. For example, he claimed to have been a "freelance journalist" ("Freier Journalist") for the daily newspaper Die Welt and to have worked ("berufliche Stationen") in Frankfurt and New York. The Axel-Springer concern, which publishes Die Welt, was quoted as stating that Guttenberg had spent a time gaining work experience (Internship) in the editorial office. In the course of his experience (May to September 2001) he had written eight short pieces, four of them as co-author with other journalists.

His jobs ("beruflichen Stationen in Frankfurt und New York") turned out to have been periods of work experience as a student, each lasting several weeks.

This could be pasted lock, stock and barrel into the article, since it is all sourced and referenced. Any comments? --TraceyR (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the Bavarian SPD wasn't taken in by Guttenberg's claims to business experience: Focus magazine reported that the then designated head of the Bavarian SPD, Florian Pronoldden, said that Guttenberg had as much idea about the economy as the Pope had about having children. Focus stated that Pronoldden had got that wrong - I wonder what they think now! --TraceyR (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If you consider his work at the Forstverwaltung Guttenberg and the KT-Vermögensverwaltung important and relevant, please simply add the information.
The information concerning his capital holdings in the Rhön-Klinikum are already included. Regarding the Guttenberg GmbH, it had a capital stock of 1,000,000 Euro and assets of more than 260,000,000 Euro. The fact that the Guttenberg GmbH had only a few employees is already mentioned in the article. The turnover is of little importance since we are talking about a holding company.
By virtue of being one of the co-owners, Guttenberg was directly involved in Rhön-Klinikum IPO (notwithstanding his young age). Also that Guttenberg, in his capacity as a Rhön-Klinikum supervisory board member, was by definition not involved in the operational management does not need to be mentioned as this is standard with supervisory boards. Guttenberg's internships are also well-documented. If you want to add specific details to the article, please do so, but no copy-paste please. Thank you. -- Dewritech (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Dewritech: You have reverted several edits, although they were all correctly cited using reliable sources, e.g. about Guttenberg's military service and his lack of business experience. Each one quoted what the source reported ("Unteroffizier" was translated as "noncommissioned officer"; if this is incorrect and was the reason for the revert, by all means use the correct term and revert your revert). It would be useful for you to justify each of these reverts. Thank you. --TraceyR (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

User:TraceyR: As you can see in the page history, I provided a short comment for every revert. Here is now a more detailed explanation:
* no military career starts as a non-commissioned officer; everyone starts as private, further promotions up the rank occur at a later stage; anonymous career-"expectations" by hearsay are not encyclopaedic;
* revert of Guttenberg’s not disputing the holding-character of Guttenberg GmbH: it’s character is described explicitly (including his critics), so why mention that Guttenberg did not dispute the truth?
* revert of anonymous acquaintances' hearsay "largely on paper": Rhön-Klinikum has the common German 2-tier board-system; therefore the members of the supervisory board just meet several times a year; the annual reports of 1999, 2000, and 2001 lists 13 meetings, which is fully in line with and even exceeds German standards (requiring a minimum of two supervisory board meeting during both first and second half of each calendar year for publicly listed companies).
With your edit from November 27, you deleted the sourced fact that the family of Guttenberg put a special emphasis to prepare him for managing the family’s assets (estimated to be close to half a billion Euro)? Please explain.
In addition, the information concerning Guttenberg's journalistic work is not accurate (the specific reference notwithstanding). For example, between May 2001 and the end of January 2002 (8 months), the newspaper's website welt.de lists 18 articles authored solely by Guttenberg ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]) plus an additional five articles where he was a co-author.([19][20][21][22][23])
-- Dewritech (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The wording re "family preparing him" was not sourced. The source I gave for "not starting as expected as Unteroffizier" was sourced as given, as was the source for the number of articles. I'm afraid your original research on the number of articles under his name is OR, i.e. not cited from a reliable source. I believe that this needs to be sourced to be acceptable here, although I'm not sure what WP requires in such a case. --TraceyR (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User:TraceyR: Your phrase "not starting as expected as Unteroffizier" cannot be sourced by the given article and contradicts military career regulations. If you think that the listing of Guttenberg’s articles just here on TP violates OR, they could also be listed together in the "Articles" section, with the "Education" referring to them. However, as this would simply inflate the publications, therefore I prefer the current wording. In any event, the well-sourced number of Guttenberg articles proves the FAZ-article as incorrect or at least misleading here.
The phrase "family preparing him" is sourced by the following German article, where it says:
-"…wurde der erstgeborene Karl-Theodor seit frühester Jugend darauf vorbereitet, dereinst das beträchtliche Familienvermögen zu vermehren, das auf eine halbe Milliarde Euro geschätzt wird."
-"Karl-Theodor habe bereits als 16-jähriger Teenager gewusst, dass die Verwaltung des Familienvermögens mit Immobilien, Weingut und Wäldern auf ihn zulaufen würde. Und seine Eltern wussten, dass er nicht wie der Vater Musiker, sondern Jurist oder Ökonom werden sollte." -- Dewritech (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that the major problem here is the polarising nature of Guttenberg. Initially he was seen as the "coming man", the saviour of German politics (in fact a friend of mine really admired him as a good example of German nobility and a potential Chancellor - he is now, of course, a disappointed man!) while others see him as a chancer, a "Blender", someone who (in his own words) "has always managed to achieve a lot with relatively little effort". As a result, the published sources are also either very pro or very contra. Trying to produce an objective article using these sources is impossible without making this polarisation evident in the article, e.g. "some sources state A, while others state B". At the moment the sycophantic sources seem to outweigh the critical ones (which is the view of the IP who started this thread). I don't think that any reasonable person would dispute that he has been less than truthful about his "career milestones", nor that his dissertation scandal also indicates that he was intentionally dishonest on a grand scale. Paying 20,000 Euros and avoiding prosecution is seen by some as a perversion of the course of justice and as paving the way for his rehabilitation, since a successful prosecution would have barred his way back into politics. Others have been prosecuted for similar fraud. As a result, an article which draws more on the positive sources and plays down the critical voices cannot be acceptable for Wikipedia. We need an objective article. --TraceyR (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User:TraceyR: You got the point quiet well with Guttenberg when you referred to his "polarizing nature". But outside physics, polarizing has a lot to do with emotions. And emotions are a big handicap when you want to reach objectivity (although many philosophers - among others - doubt the existence of objectivity among human "subjects" any way…).
Today, Guttenberg is a good example of how emotions condition perceptions: When he was the “rising star” among German politicians, almost supernatural capabilities were attributed to him – both by regular citizens and the media.
When his PhD thesis fell apart, Guttenberg suddenly turned into quite the opposite – and now every aspect of his life was a new expression of him being a "Blender" (a show-off). You gave good examples:
* The ability to achieve "a lot with relatively little effort" in and of itself is just a basic principle of efficiency we all should strive for. In the case of Guttenberg, however, thsi principle is viewed as an affirmation of his bad character.
* Embelleshing one's CV is just as common and wide-spread these days, where everybody has to promote him- or herself. Here finding a good phrase is rather seen as good marketing. Keep in mind that he is a politician. (besides, I don't think your translation "career milestones" accurately reflect's Guttenberg’s "berufliche Stationen").
* Perception of his "dissertation scandal": for some, this is the indicator "that he was intentionally dishonest on a grand scale" and paying 20.000 Euro therefore is the evidence of a "perverted" justice, as "others have been prosecuted for similar fraud". Do you know one of these similar cases? I would venture to say that without Guttenberg’s prominence, his doctoral degree would probably just have been revoked and no one would be talking about it. As many people are not satisfied here, what punishment would you suggest? The district attorney referred just to a "minimal economic damage".
Please don’t misunderstand me: I don’t want to absolve Guttenberg for anything he did or did not. But in the case of objectivity you have to consider all aspects. So with this article: if you think, it needs enlargement, just do it. But please don’t erase "sourced facts just in order to promote a special view". Guttenberg is controversial and will probably continue to be – but we need facts here, not feelings, in order to meet encyclopaedic standards. Although re-writing the past never has been as easy as today, we have to resist. Otherwise we will end up with Orwell’s 1984… -- Dewritech (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The case of Andres Casper is similar: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Kasper#Plagiatsaff.C3.A4re. The prosecution Göttingen relied on a particular public interest, as Kasper held a high office. In January 2010, Kasper got a penalty in the amount of 9,000 €. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.109.158 (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Dewritech: The recent case of Andres Casper is significant, because the prosecution for the same offence (but less extensive in Casper's case) went ahead and Casper was duly found guilty. In Guttenberg's case the argument that there was "little economic damage" ignores the principle at stake. The argument which you advance, that "everyone does it so it's OK", simply encourages people like Guttenberg to act the way he did. The Göttingen court got it right in Casper's case. Whatever the damage to other individuals, if such cases are not taken to court, society in general and the academic reputation of a university, maybe of a whole country, is damaged - how does one put a figure on that? As for what punishment I would suggest, it would be simple: take the case to court (although this is not a punishment but what due process demands). If Guttenberg were found guilty, as one would be right to expect, that would be punishment enough in his case. Forget the 20,000 Euros (as he no doubt has done already). As it is, he (and his fans) will say that he was never found guilty of anything, and so the way is open for Guttenberg, back into German public life and perhaps into politics. As for the admonishment not to erase sourced facts just in order to promote a special view, please read my comments (addressed to you) a few days ago. "Career milestones" for "berufliche Stationen": how would you have translated it? And about his "embellishments": remove the three internships from his CV and what is left? (1) an undistinguished 'career' in the military (2) an undistinguished first degree (indeed he needed as special dispensation to be admitted to his doctoral 'studies') (3) a fraudulently 'cut and paste' thesis (4) an undeserved doctorate, since revoked and (5) party and ministerial careers which hardly bear scrutiny (ask de Maizière!). The only 'positive' things left in the CV would be (1) managing to get a job working for the family firm and (2) becoming a non-executive director of a company in which his family held a controlling interest (coincidentally the same company that donated 750,000 Euros to the faculty which awarded him his 'doctorate'!). But let's not be too hard on him: he can play the piano, play tennis and certainly play the media. Forget 'objectivity' - let's stick to the facts! --TraceyR (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User:TraceyR: NPOV??! (berufliche Stationen: "Professional Experience" is the correct/neutral/encyclopedic term – you won’t find many resumes with a sub-header "Career Milestones"...) -- Dewritech (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Re NPOV: as you mentioned the other day, "many philosophers - among others - doubt the existence of objectivity among human "subjects" any way"; WP'S NPOV doesn't require that we have a neutral point of view about the subject of an article, but NPOV does require any edits we make to be as neutral as the sources allow. This is what WP:NPOV says: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." (my italics). This doesn't prevent contributors from having a point of view (we would be poor editors if we had no POV) and expressing it on talk pages. As for "professional experience", that implies something more than internships, but not to the same extent (IMHO) as "berufliche Stationen"; we must remember that they lasted a few or several weeks at the most. This, of course, is why he expresses it that way. The intention, obviously, was to create a (misleading) impression that he actually worked, i.e. applied for, obtained and held down a job in Frankfurt and similarly in New York. This is dishonest. Internships aren't even "berufliche Haltestellen/bus stops"! "Work experience" would be closer, but this would be a translation of "Praktika" (which is the word he should have used, if he had been honest about it). The article should perhaps mention that his CV refers to "professional experience" but that in reality they were internships. As you will be aware, the Guttenplag wiki site has released information about a paper Guttenberg 'researched' some years ago, large portions of which were other people's work, again appropriated and used without mentioning the sources. Of course some might say that this is just a way of achieving a lot with relatively little effort and is just a basic principle of efficiency we all should strive for. Others, including myself, will disagree. It seems that Guttenberg has always tried to get by with as little effort as possible, even when this involves stealing other people's work and passing it off as his own. This is dishonest. An objective NPOV article cannot ignore these things. --TraceyR (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

User:TraceyR: Nothing is ignored as the critics according to Guttenberg’s thesis, his CV, politics, etc. is already included in the article. And maybe there is more to come. Of course, every editor has a POV, but NPOV is requested for article-edits. Your quote from WP:NPOV "...als far as possible without bias..." is no charter for POV-edits. Therefore your personal Guttenberg CV given above can be published here but must not be a pattern for the article itself. -- Dewritech (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the claims in his CV are not ignored, but the way in which they are mentioned is an excellent example of what the originator of this thread was complaining about: mentioned but brushed aside - more of the "everyone does it so it's OK for him too" argument. This needs to be remedied; I'll see what I can do (NPOV of course). --TraceyR (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Havent't been aware yet that we have to brush aside here... -- Dewritech (talk) 10:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Politikaward

The "Politikaward" has been awarded since 2003 by politik & kommunikation, a German periodical for political communications, and is referred to as "Politiker des Jahres" by German media (see Spiegel, Focus, Welt, Berliner Morgenpost, or Handelsblatt) – therefore its notation as "German Politician of the Year" is coherent with sources. -- Dewritech (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Die Welt - just intern or also freelancer?

Article is ambiguous here. Polmandc (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

So are the sources. --TraceyR (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Polmandc: The nature of Guttenberg’s work at Die Welt had already been disputed above. Although the main source states that Guttenberg just did an internship for several months writing 8 articles altogether, I found more than 20 articles written by Guttenberg, published between May 2001 and January 2002. In my view a clear indicator that his affiliation with Die Welt was more than just a short internship. -- Dewritech (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Dewritech: I see TraceyR's problem with WP:OR, but since all these articles were actually published, one can't deny their "source" character. I will limit therefore this section to those elements that are undisputed. Polmandc (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Family

The family section was expanded with the information that Joachim von Ribbentrop, father of Adolf Richard Barthold von Ribbentrop, whom Guttenberg's mother married in 1985, was executed as war criminal. Of course, this fact is highly relevant for Ribbentrop's own article. But I don't see relevance here (aside from sounding a little bit sensational…). -- Dewritech (talk) 12:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok but then why include specific information about the background of Karl-Ludwig zu Guttenberg and his military resistance, or the opposition to the "Ostpolitik" by his great-grandfather etc.? In that case, either delete this information as well / move it to the relevant primary articles or include the background of Ribbentrop as well. Otherwise it seems biased towards a positive depiction of his family background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Ferdinand (talk • contribs) 23:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Internship as professional experience

What's the problem with listing internships as professional experience? Maybe it is some kind of a "German issue"??! Polmandc (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Is being honest about one's past just a German issue? Honesty is a basic human virtue; somewho who is dishonest about his past cannot expect this to be glossed over in his biography! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.21.199.130 (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that his CV didn't say he was working for that newspaper as an intern, but as a “freelance journalist”. While journalist isn't a protected job title, calling an internship “freelancing” is, well, let's call it creative, at least by German standards. In Germany, “Berufserfahrung” (~work experience) is gathered after you finish your professional training, so if a lawyer tells you he's got x years of “Berufserfahrung”, you'll expect him to have worked as a lawyer for that period of time. From what I understand some of the other internships he listed as work experience were mandatory for his degree - again, it's OK to list them as internships, but you shouldn't make it look like this was “work experience” you gained after finishing your degree. --Six words (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. He obviously feels the need to make these internships sound like real jobs because (as has been pointed out) there's not much else for him to write about. It's also POV editing to mention that a newspaper said it is common for people to pimp up their CVs, without including the rider about what this reveals about their character. Either include both parts of the sentence or neither. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.21.199.130 (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

188er: My question was not about ethics, but just where to list internships on a resume. In the US it is not unusual to list them as pro experience. Six words therefore gave a "German" perspective to understand the critics. With your POV-problem: the first part of the sentence contains a specific information, the second part does not. Polmandc (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

May I ask in what way the second part of that sentence does not contain "specific information"? It's an interesting argument but one which fails to convince. In the writer's opinion it is common for people to exaggerate their achievements in a CV. That may well be true. Those who pretend that an internship was professional experience certainly reveal that they are not averse to being "creative with the truth", which certainly tells us something about their character. Surely that is more specific information than that in the first statement. --TraceyR (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is what the source says: "Keine Frage, solche Übertreibungen sind zulässig, womöglich nicht einmal unüblich. Allerdings lassen sie unmissverständliche Rückschlüsse auf den Charakter von Personen zu, die davon Gebrauch machen." In English: "No question, such exaggerations are admissible, maybe not even unusual. But they allow unambiguous inferences about the character of persons that make use of them." I don't think this can fairly be summarised as "was referred to by one German newspaper as a common CV overstatement". The source doesn't say it is common, it says it may be common. And it makes it very clear that it's technically OK but not morally. We must reflect this or use a different source if we want to say something else. Hans Adler 22:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hans Adler: Thanks for translation. But these unambiguous inferences remain in fact purely speculative. Polmandc (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The point is that the article, as it stands, incorrectly interprets the source cited. The source is relevant and reliable; the article needs to reflect what the source says, not someone else's POV. Why not incorporate this translation? There's no need to spell out what the sentence means - let's leave it up to the reader to decide. --TraceyR (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. To put it succinctly, the source says "Maybe A. But B." And our article just says "A". From the original context it's clear that even just citing it for "Maybe A." would be a misrepresentation because that's not a statement of fact but a concession made for a specific rhetorical purpose. Hans Adler 12:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Several German newspapers criticized Guttenberg's CV, but only a single one came up with unambiguous inferences. My suggestion therefore: change the source (as suggested by Hans Adler) and revert to CV overstatement without common. In my eyes this solves the POV-question adequately without giving a single source too much prominence. -- Dewritech (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It is true that several German newspapers criticised his CV, but the Süddeutsche wasn't the only one to link it to character defects (that's my inference). The online portal for the WAZ (here) linked Guttenberg's need to exaggerate his achievements to an overblown view of his own importance ("Auch die Wissenschaft kennt das „Phänomen Guttenberg“. Vermutlich hat die Psychologin Amy Brunell von der Ohio State University den Namen des Verteidigungsministers noch nie gehört, doch könnten ihre Ergebnisse zum Verständnis seines Verhaltens beitragen. In ihrer Studie untersuchte sie den Aufstiegswillen narzisstischer Persönlichkeiten, also selbstverliebter Menschen mit ausgeprägtem Selbstwertgefühl. Studenten mit narzisstischer Veranlagung seien eher geneigt, bei Prüfungen zu fälschen oder zu pfuschen, zeigte sie in ihrer Studie mit 200 Testpersonen. „Narzissten wollen von anderen bewundert werden, sie müssen ihr übersteigertes Selbstwertgefühl be­wahren“, schreibt sie in dem Fachblatt „Personality and Individual Differences“. Um zu bekommen, was sie wollen, schieben sie moralische Bedenken zuweilen beiseite, so Brunell – und hätten nicht einmal ein schlechtes Gewissen dabei. „Ohne Reue schummeln sie sich nach oben.“) - basically saying that the findings of the psychologist Amy Brunell at Ohio State could explain his behaviour (the desire to succeed of ambitious nacissistic personalities) as the result of their need to be admired because of their exaggerated feeling of their own importance; "Students with narcissistic tendencies are more likely to cheat in exams...). This is much more explicit than "unambiguous inferences"; whether this should be incorporated into the article would need to be discussed. I mention it here primarily to show that the Süddeutsche Zeitung wasn't alone; it was even mild in its criticism compared with "Der Westen". --TraceyR (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

TraceyR: I agree that the current source doesn't back the previous version for this sec. So I will add a different source and renew my suggestion of "CV overstatement". Guttenberg's CV was criticized and that has to be mentioned here adequately with NPOV. Drawing vague, unsubstantiated parallels to "narcism", "character defects", moral defects, etc. lacks relevance unless they're proven by authoritative findings. -- Dewritech (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

In order to end this translation-dispute (boring for "non-Germans"...) I will revert the section to CV overstatement and take the last reference. Polmandc (talk) 06:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Personal website now just one contacts page

Guttenberg has now replaced his personal website with a single contacts page, giving his Berlin and Kulmbach addresses, emails etc. His controversial CV is therefore no longer readily accessible online. --TraceyR (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Guttenberg writing a new doctoral dissertation?

Several reports have surfaced that Guttenberg is working on a new doctoral dissertation. His entry on the Bundestag website (which also refers to his now famous "professional experience in Frankfurt and New York") intriguingly mentions that he is a "Doktorand" (i.e. working towards a doctorate). Now it could be that this is just a reference to the fact that he once tried to get a doctorate, but this would be an unusual entry in a CV. Is this worth mentioning in the article?--TraceyR (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

TraceyR: Observe the date: it's archived data of the 15th legislature. Guttenberg was a "Doktorant" then. For today it's definitely no reference for some new thesis, etc. - and not for a "once tried"-edit either. Polmandc (talk) 06:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The same (old) source mentions the "New Academic Forum", of which he was chairman. Is there any information about this organisation other than the fact of its existence/registration? --TraceyR (talk) 09:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

23

The district attorney found 23 relevant copyright violations. So I deleted the "extensive" in the intro, but this edit was reverted. Given reason: ">1000 instances of unattributed text". I consider the statement of the prosecution as crucial here. 2.210.43.153 (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the fundamental difference between plagiarism and copyright violations, the precise formulation in the district attorney's press release was as follows: "Aus der Dissertation konnten jedenfalls 23 Textpassagen als strafrechtlich relevante Urheberrechtsverstöße herausgearbeitet werden." I.e. the number is for the criminally relevant transgression which were proved in detail. It is unclear how many other criminally relevant transgressions were simply ignored as minor when compared to the others, and nothing is said about how many breaches of copyright there were that were only matters for a civil case. Hans Adler 02:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The 23 were the result of preliminary proceedings, which mean a comprehensive analysis of all criminally relevant facts, in contrast to the criminal proceedings with its distinction between major and minor elements of offense. 2.208.163.163 (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there a precedent for not starting criminal proceedings when "criminally relevant breaches of copyright have been established"? To me the reason proceedings were stopped in this case seems odd; it is like saying "OK, the defendant really did commit 23 criminal offences, but since he didn't steal very much (how can one establish the financial value of 23 stolen passages of text anyway?) we'll let him off if he pays a small amount to a charity". Is the concept of principle irrelevant under German law? Surely the correct way in this case would have been for Guttenberg to have been charged, tried, found guilty (since criminally relevant breaches of copyright had already been established) and maybe only then for him to have been let off with a small fine.--TraceyR (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The decision is clearly inconsistent with an earlier decision in the case of plagiarism/copyvios by another, less notable politician. Such inconsistencies are of course not unusual, though this one certainly gives a bad impression. I think state attorneys tend to prefer settlements such as this one in relatively minor cases. If you ignore the political dimension, copyright violations with no direct commercial profit, even on such an epic scale, are minor when compared to other crimes. I don't think it was a particularly good decision, but I also don't think this settlement was unusual at all. It's within the logic of the German system, which also has the de:Strafbefehl ('penalty order'), which works as follows: In minor criminal cases, the state attorney can estimate an appropriate punishment and have it authorised by the judge. If the defendant does not contradict, this becomes the verdict. Otherwise there is a full case. Hans Adler 19:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I have seen on German WP a link to a website showing that someone (an author, Peter Milger) has indeed calculated the value of one of the cases of plagiarism (I think he put it at 170 Euros). Since Guttenberg had 'his' work published and all copies were (because of the scandal) sold, the plagiarised author should have been paid by the publisher, but couldn't be because, as the world now knows, Guttenberg didn't attribute the work to the author. Those responsible for protecting authors' rights have ignored a letter Milger wrote requesting that they look into it; he also took legal action again Guttenberg but nothing has come of it. --TraceyR (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

2.2....: If you want to edit relevant parts of the article, you better come to the TP first.

TraceyR: The district attorney classified 23 passages as "criminally relevant". But these findings do not establish these passages as criminal offenses, which can only be done by court order.

Yes, I assume that the court would come to the same conclusion as the district attorney's office after a comprehensive analysis of all criminally relevant facts.--TraceyR (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hans Adler: Is it this case you refer to? Here in contrast the author also published two educational books.

-- Dewritech (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

EU role in intro, not in body

Information about Guttenberg's new role as advisor to the EU Commission is mentioned in the introduction paragraph but not in the body of the article. The intro is supposed to summarise the article. --TraceyR (talk) 10:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Modified. Polmandc (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Munich School of Political Science

Can the statement about his time at the Munich School of Political Science be expanded? E.g. did he gain a recognised qualification, finish a course of studies, get any credits, attend lectures, or maybe just sign on? It would be useful to state what he achieved at this school, if anything. --TraceyR (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be no further info available. -- Dewritech (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Mistakes in the "Doctorate plagiarism" section (corrected)

• I altered

On 11 March 2011, the University of Bayreuth announced the expansion of the commission investigating Guttenberg’s dissertation while having no legal basis for such an investigation given that the university had already revoked his title

to

On 11 March 2011, the University of Bayreuth announced the expansion of the commission investigating Guttenberg’s dissertation for scientific irregularity. It was opinioned that they had no legal basis for such an investigation, since Guttenberg was not a current member of the university, and therefore not subject to their "disciplinary power".

This is the single opinion of Volker Rieble, who is certainly a reputed law professor, but, even in Germany, professors do not have jurisdiction. Nor was his reasoning correctly conveyed in the article.

• I removed the wrong contention that the attorney objected the final report of the university commission, concerning the question whether Guttenberg deceived "intentionally". There is no hint to that in the | official release by the attorney's office. The quote from the | university commission's report reads in the original as "und hierbei vorsaetzlich getaeuscht hat" (p. 13). The word vorsaetzlich, which is indeed found throughout the whole document, is a German legal term. Translated into the order of mens rea in English-speaking legal systems, it covers all levels of culpability above negligence. Well, the point is that "the prosecution" cannot possibly have objected this finding by the commission, due to the following logical impossibility: (a) they themselves found criminally relevant copyright violations; but (b) copyright violations committed out of mere negligence are not criminally relevant, according to (German) law. There may have been some confusion in the German tabloids, causing the confusion in the article.

• I also overworked the last sentence, to make it accord better with German criminal procedure and the prosecution's report. --Enea Vico (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

My edits were reverted with the comment "Sources repl. by OR", which, I presume, means that I allegedly replaced sources by original research. Well, the one and only source which I actually replaced was a SPIEGEL online article (of contradictory content) - and I did not replace it by original research, but by a much more reliable source, namely, the official report of the commission on the website of Bayreuth university. In all of the three edits explained above, I actually stuck very much closer to the sources than the previous guesswork in the article did - particularly in the third one, which is as close as a single sentence can be to the wording of the attorney's official release. My humble explanations above, which are apparently decried as "original research", were only to make my edits easily comprehensible, but they were not meant to "replace the sources". In the first case, I maintained that a single opinion uttered in a journal is not to be displayed as a legal fact; which, I should think, is self-evident. In the third case, I say that my edit of the last sentence "accords better with the prosecution's report" - while, inexcusably, I also say that it accords better "with German criminal procedure", which might be original research, even though any law undergraduate in Germany would miraculously come to the same original idea simultaneously. Well, I presume that the only serious point of critique refers to my second explanation; that is, to my considerations about the word vorsaetzlich. The facts, which can be obtained from the sources, are: (a) the attorney's official release nowhere "denies" any findings of the university commission (which, in itself, would be sufficient basis to my edit); (b) the quote in the article was from the commission's report, which I added in the original version to the footnotes; (c) throughout this report, and particularly in the sentence quoted in the article, there only appears the word vorsaetzlich; (d) the SPIEGEL article which alleges that the prosecution denied certain findings of the commission also alleges that the commission's report says absichtlich instead of vorsaetzlich. It is, in this regard, a case of "source against source". It is true that the attorney's and the university's releases are the reliable sources here, anyway; and therefore, my above reasoning about the logical incompatibility of the previous guesswork in the article, if helpfull at all, is at least dispensable. I shall revert the revert --Enea Vico (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I should add that, for my sake, the SPIEGEL article may of course be re-inserted into the article at any suitable location. --Enea Vico (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The deleted source cites the unpublished opinion of the prosecution, not its press release. It also meets WP:3PARTY - in contrast to the report by the university.
absichtlich vs vorsaetzlich: just check German press coverage.-- Dewritech (talk) 12:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Concerning "German press coverage": The media speculation about "absichtlich" was triggered by an article in Sueddeutsche Zeitung from 8 April, to which all other newspapers referred. Only two days later, the university declared in a different newspaper that the commission had not talked of "absichtliche Taeuschung" and that the accusations by Guttenberg's lawyer were misplaced. Regarding media coverage, the current article is therefore not balanced and neutral. In spite of the correction by the university spokesman, the "leak" is treated as an undisputedly authentic source. Also, the application of the "third party" criterion seems a little nonsensical here: why should what a third party says the commission says be more reliable than what the commission says?
• The quote in the article is from the official report by the commission, and this report nowhere says "absichtlich", but only "vorsaetzlich". The "unpublished opinion of the prosecution", as appeared in the German press, said that Guttenberg did not act "absichtlich". So the purported denial of the commission's findings by the prosecution does obviously not refer to the preceding quote, as alleged in the article. It was "concluded" by the media with reference to their "information" obtained from the "leak".
• It remains wrong that the prosecution, whether officially or unofficially, denied that Guttenberg acted vorsaetzlich.
• It remains wrong that the prosecution, whether officially or unofficially, denied this "accusation" in the quote or in the commission's report as a whole.
• Thanks for the attempt to find a compromise regarding professor Rieble's commentary. Rieble's opinion, however, was that the university was not entitled to run such a form of investigation after Guttenberg had left university (i.e., after he had passed his doctor exam, at the latest; not just since they had revoked his title), for the reasons given above.

I would eventually recommend taking a look at the corresponding article(s) in the German wikipedia, which is quite instructive about the alleged importance of an alleged contradiction between university and prosecution. with kind regards, --Enea Vico (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As a native German speaker, the difference between "Absicht" and "Vorsatz" is not really significant. Both carry nearly exactly the same meaning. The main difference is that "Absicht" is slightly less formal (though by no means informal), while "Vorsatz" is slightly more formal (and e.g. used in legal texts). Note also that the public prosecutor and the University talk about different acts. The university is concerned with the question if Guttenberg intentionally violated academic standards (e.g. by plagiarism). The public prosecutor, on the other hand, is asking about criminal violation of copyright. These are not strictly connected - if Guttenberg had only copied public-domain texts without attribution, or paid a ghostwriter to write the text from scratch, he would be clear on the copyright charge, but would still have lost his doctorate. And if he had properly attributed all cited documents, but e.g. used some copyrighted images without license, he would not have violated academic standards, but would still have been guilty of copyright infringement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Being a native speaker of German myself, and, apart from that, one with a German legal education, I can assure you that there is a significant difference between "Vorsatz" and "Absicht", and that both are legal terms. You may look up Grade des Vorsatzes in the German wiki, compare that to mens rea, and see what I mean above. As for your second point, contrariwise, there is no significant difference between the meaning of "intentional deception" in the context of the university's investigation and the criminal investigation, respectively. Therefore, the commission's report quotes court decisions to substantiate their findings. with kind regards, --Enea Vico (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In its report, the commission wrote that Guttenberg "grossly violated standard research practices and in doing so deliberately deceived". In contrast, the district attorneys office concluded, that Guttenberg's explanation, namely that he had lost track of the thesis and did only sporadic studies on sources, was "conceivable and in any case not refutable".
There's a major difference between deliberately concealing gross violations of academic standards and losing track of one's thesis in connection with a sloppy use of sources/footnoting.
We don’t have to decide on the truth of either one of it, but the fundamental contradiction between these findings is an undeniable fact that was covered by media and is therefore clearly sourced, in spite of the university's later attempts to soften it.
In contrast, the current attempt here is to downplay this conflict. There’s simply no sourcing that corresponds to the author’s point of view. Hence all sources given date back to around May 2011, while the district attorney’s decision was taken in November 2011. That decision was in fact criticized – for taking a partial economic perspective, not for its denial of deliberate intent on Guttenberg's side. Therefore the favored evaluation above remains OR, representing merely the personal view of a single author.-- Dewritech (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.army-technology.com/features/feature101199/

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted link replaced.-- Dewritech (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)