Talk:Guttenberg plagiarism scandal
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | Material from Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg was split to Guttenberg plagiarism scandal on 13 February 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg. |
Süddeutsche "summa cum laude"
editPerhaps the chronology should include the tongue-in-cheek advertisement by the Süddeutsche about the paper being also "summa cum laude". Witty! --TraceyR (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Dubious reasoning
editIt is portrayed here as if Guttenberg only made his statement to selected journalists in order to respectfully avoid mixing his plagiarism affair with the death of the soldiers and had the not invited journalists only known this they would have understood: "As a news embargo on the killed soldiers was in effect pending next-of-kin notification, the FPC journalists did not know why Guttenberg had advanced his personal statement and thus left the FPC session in anger." This is very a far-fetched interpretation and we should stick to the facts. Galant Khan (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Merkel's position
editThis statement is not dated, so it's not helpful to have in the article as is. In any case, Merkel's position is discussed in the timeline. I'm preserving the material here by providing this link. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Requested move 3 April 2017
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page moved to Guttenberg plagiarism scandal. Clear consensus for a move, with a slight consensus for scandal over affair. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Causa Guttenberg → Guttenberg plagiarism scandal – WP:COMMONNAME & WP:ENGLISH. Known as "Guttenberg plagiarism scandal" in English language sources; see sample search results; "Causa Guttenberg" is a German-language term (pls see link); it's not something that an English-lang reader would expect to use when discussing a scandal. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- A number of sources also call it the "Guttenberg Plagiarism Affair." Both "Guttenberg Plagiarism Affair" and "Guttenberg Plagiarism Scandal" are fine, but I lean towards the former. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Either option ("Guttenberg plagiarism scandal" or "Guttenberg Plagiarism Affair") sounds fine. -Darouet (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Suggesting Minister Guttenberg plagiarism scandal. The problem is that "Guttenberg" takes my thoughts to Johannes Gutenberg and his printing invention. Adding "Minister" helps to change focus on more contemporary history. --Robertiki (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Just going by the number of search engine results, it actually looks like "Guttenberg plagiarism scandal" is the most common English name for the scandal, and that it's more common than "Guttenberg plagiarism affair." I think that after looking at the opening sentence, readers should be clear that this is about the recent defense minister, rather than the inventor of the printing press. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- I also think that "minister" is unnecessary. It hard to imagine that someone may confuse the two Guttenbergs. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Just going by the number of search engine results, it actually looks like "Guttenberg plagiarism scandal" is the most common English name for the scandal, and that it's more common than "Guttenberg plagiarism affair." I think that after looking at the opening sentence, readers should be clear that this is about the recent defense minister, rather than the inventor of the printing press. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.