Jump to content

Talk:Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Coverage of Plagiarism Belongs in Article

I've added a bit of material - well sourced - about the plagiarism scandal surrounding Guttenberg. This material has been reverted twice now, with the claim each time that it's not relevant to this article. This article is about Guttenberg, and the amount of emphasis placed on various aspects of his biography and career should bear some sort of relation to their notability, as measured by the amount of reporting they have received. I don't think anyone can claim that the plagiarism scandal, which received enormous coverage, and is probably the single thing Guttenberg is best known for, is not notable enough to receive a few sentences in an article of this size. I actually find that aspects of Guttenberg's biography that have received comparatively little public attention, like his family life, are given far too much attention in this article compared to the plagiarism scandal.

We can get a sense for the relative notability of the various aspects of Guttenberg's biography by looking at the amount of press coverage each has received. I'll use English sources, because I have access to LexisNexis but not any comparable database for German articles. Here are the number of articles in major English-language newspapers around the world that are returned for each of the following search phrases:

  • "Theodor zu Guttenberg": 820
  • Guttenberg "defense minister": 792
  • Guttenberg plagiarism: 270
  • Guttenberg "defense minister" plagiarism: 240
  • Googleberg: 33
  • Guttenberg "disconnect strategy": 0

Note that Lexis Nexis handles "defense"/"defence" properly (i.e., it searches for both spellings when you enter one, so there's no need to enter both).

From the above number, in English-language newspapers, about a third of all articles that mention Guttenberg discuss the plagiarism scandal. Most of the rest of the articles deal with his actions as defense minister. Even the joke name "Googleberg," referencing the plagiarism accusations, is referenced in 4% of the articles about him. By contrast, other aspects of his career that this Wikipedia article currently gives more space than the plagiarism scandal, like the "No Disconnect Strategy," are not mentioned at all in English-language newspaper articles in Lexis Nexis' database.

This indicates that if anything, the article needs serious rebalancing, reducing the amount of space spent describing less notable elements of Guttenberg's biography, like his CSIS appointment and his work on the "No Disconnect Strategy," and giving more space to his actions as defense minister and to the plagiarism scandal. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you see the main article on this highly relevant topic (size 88k!)? The information is relevant for Causa Guttenberg, here we only need a good summary of the subtopic WP:PROPERSPLIT.--Polmandc (talk) 05:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Thucydides411: As mentioned by Polmandc there is already another dedicated article about the plagiarism charges. Also, when taking a quantified approach like your Lexis Nexis findings, Wikipedia currently contains more than 9,200 words related to Guttenberg of which more than 4,400 speak about plagiarism - almost one in two! If anything, that sounds imbalanced. As for rebalancing you may rather want to work on different sections.-- Dewritech (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The existence of a main article does not mean that the subject should be scrubbed from the article about Guttenberg. The plagiarism scandal appears to be the second most notable aspect of his biography, and it should receive appropriate attention on the Wikipedia page about him. It appears that you both think even a few sentences is too much mention on this page, which is a position I simply can't comprehend. As it is, there isn't anything remotely resembling a "good summary of the subtopic" on this page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Nothing has been "scrubbed from the article". The article's 4th sentence talks about plagiarism, plus there is a section on his resignation also mentioning plagiarism and linking to Causa Guttenberg.-- Dewritech (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Compare this to the German article, which handles the issue very well. It gives the plagiarism issue about the weight it deserves, based on notability, and links to a main article about the plagiarism scandal. The existence of another article doesn't mean that this article, on Guttenberg, should spend only a few sentences on the subject. The point of splitting a sub-subject into a separate article is to prevent it from taking more space in the main article than notability would require. The plagiarism issue is at no risk of taking over Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg right now. In fact, it gets strangely little mention, given that it's basically the second most notable aspect of his biography. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Polmandc and Dewritech: I'd like to frame the issue more precisely. There are two articles: one on Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, and one on the Causa Guttenberg. What we are discussing here is what the proper balance within the Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg article is, and how the existence of the separate article Causa Guttenberg bears on that question.
Based on the news coverage of Guttenberg, it is clear that the plagiarism scandal has received very significant coverage, probably second only to Guttenberg's actions as Defense Minister. On that basis, WP:WEIGHT would seem to require that the Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg article devote a significant fraction of its space (perhaps 25%) to the plagiarism scandal.
However, the argument has been made above that because the plagiarism scandal has been split into a separate article, Causa Guttenberg, it should receive only a "good summary of the subtopic," as per WP:PROPERSPLIT. Based on the reverts of my small additions, this "good summary" is taken to be extremely minimal - not more than a few sentences, it seems. I think this is a misreading of WP:SPLIT. The WP:SPLIT policy makes clear that the point of splitting out content into sub-articles is to reduce their proportion in the original article down to what WP:WEIGHT would suggest. WP:SPLIT specifically says,
"In some cases, refactoring an article into child or sister articles can allow subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating a general overview article to which they are non-central"
The point of creating Causa Guttenberg is to prevent the plagiarism issue from dominating the Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg article. But the split still has to respect WP:WEIGHT. Indeed, that's the whole point of the split.
I agree that if the whole Causa Guttenberg article were pasted into Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, it would be out of proportion to the importance of the plagiarism scandal in Guttenberg's biography. But the remaining "good summary" that WP:PROPERSPLIT demands is a summary that is in proportion to the importance of the subtopic.
-Thucydides411 (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Your're confusing policies. There is a separate article about Guttengerg's plagiarism giving due weight to the issue (WP:WEIGHT). And WP:PROPERSPLIT demands "a good summary of the subtopic at the parent article".--Polmandc (talk) 05:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not confusing policies. WP:WEIGHT refers to the weight given to different subjects within an article, not within the encyclopaedia as a whole. The length of WP:PROPERSPLIT's required "good summary of the subtopic" is determined by WP:WEIGHT. The existence of a different article, Causa Guttenberg, does not bear on the question of what the proper weight of the plagiarism scandal in Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg is. I stated the issues very precisely above, and I would appreciate if you would actually address them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I did address the issue.--Polmandc (talk) 06:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
WP:WEIGHT begins with the statement,
"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
WP:WEIGHT applies within each individual article. Within the Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg article, we're supposed to give each topic the weight it deserves, based on the prominence of the topic in published, reliable sources. The existence of a separate article on a subtopic isn't relevant to WP:WEIGHT. Whether the subtopic article should exist is determined by WP:NOTABLE and WP:SPLIT. But to say that the existence of a subtopic article satisfies the balance requirement of WP:WEIGHT is simply to ignore what WP:WEIGHT actually says. Do you have a disagreement with this interpretation of the guidelines? -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree. By splitting an article the subtopic has gained weight - also in comparison to the parent article. Therefore WP:PROPERSPLIT unmistakably demands a good summary of the subtopic at the parent article.--Polmandc (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how to put this civilly, but you're simply ignoring the very first sentence of WP:WEIGHT, which clearly states that the policy applies specifically within each article, not across the entire encyclopaedia. By splitting out the subtopic into a separate article and reducing it down to a few sentences, the subtopic's weight has been massively reduced in this article, which is what counts for WP:WEIGHT. WP:SPLIT does not say that the "good summary" is minimal. It actually says that the whole point of creating separate subtopic pages is to respect WP:WEIGHT. But the way the Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg has been edited following the split massively violates WP:WEIGHT.
I feel this is a very simple issue. In order to move forward constructively, you have to acknowledge that WP:WEIGHT applies within the Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg article, and that the existence of a different article on Wikipedia about a subtopic does not fulfill the requirement for balance within Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg. If you don't acknowledge policy, then we're really at an impasse. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I acknowledge policy. Your're trying to take WP:WEIGHT to override WP:PROPERSPLIT which inherently already applies to WEIGHT.--Polmandc (talk) 05:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
As I've said many times now, WP:WEIGHT applies within each article, not across the entire encyclopaedia. Causa Guttenberg does not fulfill the weight requirement inside the Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg article, because it's a different article. Nowhere in WP:SPLIT does it say that the "good summary" has to be short, or that after creating a new article for a subtopic, WP:WEIGHT ceases to apply within the parent article. In fact, WP:SPLIT says that the whole point of creating a new article for the subtopic is to allow the parent article to be rewritten in a way that gives appropriate weight to each subtopic. That means that in Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, the plagiarism scandal should take up around a quarter to a third of the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
No, not consistent with policies.--Polmandc (talk) 06:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Polmandc, I've tried several times now to explain how WP:WEIGHT and WP:SPLIT apply to this article. I've explained - by directly quoting the WP:WEIGHT policy - that WP:WEIGHT applies within each article individually (rather than across the entire encyclopaedia), that WP:SPLIT's required "good summary" is a summary that is in proper proportion, according to WP:WEIGHT, to the rest of the article (again, I've cited from the policy directly). Yet your responses have been one or two sentences, just brushing off my explanations of policy, and asserting that I'm wrong. I hope we can work constructively on this article, but it's very difficult if you don't acknowledge policy, and simply brush off direct quotations from the relevant policies with one-liners. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

And several times I highlighted the close connection between source article and new article after a split. Your interpretation of WP:WEIGHT ignores this connection and violates applicable policies. There is a reason that WP:PROPERSPLIT simply demands "a good summary".--Polmandc (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Polmandc, you're simply wrong on the policy question. I've explained the policy so patiently and clearly over and over again, that I'm not going to try again. I suspect at this point that you understand what the policy is. I'm going to edit according to policy, and if you continue to revert, I'll bring it to the attention of administrators. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
You're constantly ignoring clear and unambiguous standards due to misinterpretation of policies.--Polmandc (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The appropriate length of the section on Guttenberg's resignation is disputed. Hence all edits to it should be discussed here first in order to reach consensus and avoid an edit war.
As for the dispute itself, WP:SPLIT not only asks for the creation of a good summary but also defines its normal size as a couple of paragraphs and one image.
Polmandc: There's no reason to oppose a modest expansion.
Thucydides411: Please adhere to appropriate rules of policy.
Thanks!-- Dewritech (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Dewritech, exactly what policy rules are you referring to? As far as I'm aware, I haven't violated, or advocated the violation of any editing rules. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Thucydides411: The rules of WP:SPLIT limit a summary to some paragraphs. Your earlier proposals advocated an expansion far beyond of this. So I took the liberty to point that out. Thanks for your understanding!-- Dewritech (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Dewritech, if you look again at WP:SPLIT, it does not put a limit on the length of the summary. WP:SPLIT says that the purpose of splitting is to deal with sections that take up too much space, according to WP:WEIGHT, the policy that governs the amount of space each aspect of the article should take up. I understand where your initial misunderstanding of WP:SPLIT comes from, but the issue is actually very simple. WP:WEIGHT defines the amount of space each subject should take up in the article. Splitting is one mechanism that can help to bring a large subject down to the size WP:WEIGHT suggests, while not eliminating valuable information about that subject from Wikipedia. The full description of the subject is moved to a separate article, while the treatment of the subject in the parent article is pared down to what WP:WEIGHT requires. Now that that issue is cleared up, I hope we can move forward constructively on giving the plagiarism scandal the weight WP:WEIGHT requires, which in my estimation is about a quarter to a third of the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thucydides411: You may want to look again at WP:SPLIT yourself also. There it says: Add a summary, usually of a couple of paragraphs and one image, of the newly created subtopic (unless complete removal is appropriate).

A complete removal is not appropriate here, of course. Therefore consensus calls for a couple of paragraphs.

You may also note the naming of the new article as subtopic. This indicates the interdependence of the articles involved (topic and subtopic) - and solves the question of weight. Also explains why WP:WEIGHT is not mentioned in connection with the summary.

To sum up the debate: including the RfC there is no consensus for an expansion according to your personal estimations. Feel free to draft an expanded version in line with policies and rules and discuss it here to reach consensus. Thank you!-- Dewritech (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Dewritech, but I've already read WP:SPLIT, and I'm aware of what it says. It indeed says that the summary is "usually of a couple of paragraphs and one image." It doesn't set a limit on the length. The proper length, of course, is set by WP:WEIGHT, which applies to all Wikipedia articles. I'm going to expand the section on plagiarism to a length proportional to its weight, relative to the other subtopics. I consider our discussion of policy closed, because frankly, I think the issue is so obvious as to not merit any further discussion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Adhere to rules and consensus.-- Dewritech (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC: What level of discussion of the plagiarism scandal should be included in Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus is to expand, but the amount of expansion did not reach consensus. AlbinoFerret 13:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

About a third of all English-language articles mentioning Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg deal with the plagiarism scandal surrounding his doctoral thesis, making the scandal perhaps the second issue Guttenberg is best known for, behind his time as Defense Minister. The article Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg only scantly mentions the plagiarism issue, as the plagiarism scandal has been separated off into a separate article, Causa Guttenberg, and short summaries of the issue are being removed on Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg. What level of discussion of the plagiarism scandal should be included in Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg? -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Expand Summoned by bot. I did not read his entire article, but if the sentence in the intro (which looked fine to me) and the "resignation from political offices" subsection is all that is on his bio, it needs to be expanded. Considering the length of the Causa Guttenberg article, this is a significant scandal. It should at least be two to four paragraphs, as it surely had more impact than just his resignation from political office. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Consistent with policies.--Polmandc (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Small expansion since the scandal has its own page, I do not believe there should be much more expansion to the section other than a paragraph shedding a little more light on the subject. Fraulein451 (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Karl-Theodor Buhl, sidename: zu Guttenberg

http://www.focus.de/kultur/vermischtes/karl-theodor-zu-guttenberg-warum-verschweigt-er-seinen-wahren-namen_id_6031409.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.130.20.78 (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


Revert of new summary

Thucydides411 changed the summary of sister-article Causa Guttenberg in the section Plagiarism scandal and resignation. But the new summary violated several policies like WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:BALASP and WP:BALANCE:

  • according to Causa Guttenberg the public debate on Guttenberg's thesis started in mid-February 2011; the charges against Guttenberg were dropped by an attorney at the end of November 2011; as the new summary only focused on the first two weeks (about 80 percent) and the university commission's report in May 2011 (about 20 percent) it violated WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP;
  • the new summary gave much prominence to the criticism of Guttenberg listing many details here; according to Causa Guttenberg there had also been criticism of the university with regard to the awarding process, the legal basis for the commission's further investigations, its neutrality and the leak of the commission's report in April 2011; as for the crowd-sourced investigation, their findings were presented in detail including some thumbnail; but there was no information that there had been accusations of running a partisan campaign as the founder of the investigation platform was a member of an opposition party; with this partial presentation the new summary violated WP:BALANCE;
  • in addition to the omissions above the new summary ignored elements like Guttenberg's request to revoke his title or the attorney's final report, which according to Causa Guttenberg identified only 23 violations of copyright but saw no indication for an intentionally use of other authors’ texts by Guttenberg, and was followed by a drop of charges after Guttenberg had made a donation of 20,000 Euro to some charity; with these omissions, imbalances and partial representations the new summary violated WP:NPOV and therefore was reverted.

This is not to be understood as decision that some critics were right and other critics were wrong, or that the crowd-sourced investigation findings were false and the attorney's final report was true – this judgement also saw criticism for an economic bias! – and vice versa. But as the detailled sister-article Causa Guttenberg demonstrates the complexity of this issue, changes of its summary might be better discussed here in advance. So we can reach consensus and avoid editorial bias.-- Dewritech (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Dewritech, I wrote a well-sourced and short summary of the plagiarism scandal. Your removal of it is really outrageous. To back up this wholesale removal of a well-sourced summary of an important element of Guttenberg's biography, you make a number of incorrect assertions:
1. That my summary violated WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP by focusing on the first few weeks of the plagiarism scandal: "the new summary only focused on the first two weeks (about 80 percent) and the university commission's report in May 2011 (about 20 percent) it violated WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP." News coverage of the plagiarism scandal focuses heavily on the events that occurred in the first few weeks. After all, the time between the discovery of plagiarism in Guttenberg's thesis and his resignation as Defense Minister only spanned a few weeks. I gave weight to what reliable sources chose to cover. That's how WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP work.
2. That I didn't include criticism of the University of Bayreuth and Guttenplag. In my review of the newspaper coverage of the plagiarism scandal, I found no criticism of the University of Bayreuth, and only scant criticism of Guttenplag. I'm not claiming that there was no criticism of the university. There might well have been some that I didn't come across. However, criticism of the university and Guttenplag simply did not figure prominently in news coverage of the affair. Understandably, the news media found the widespread borrowing of unsourced texts in Guttenberg's dissertation to be more interesting than the fact that the guy who founded the Guttenplag wiki holds an SPD membership card (something that nearly half a million people in Germany hold).
3. That I supposedly didn't mention Guttenberg's request to revoke his title. In fact, the summary contained this line: "On 18 February 2011, Guttenberg acknowledged errors in the writing of his thesis and announced he would abstain from the use of the title 'Doctor,' pending the outcome of an investigation by the University of Bayreuth." If you think that something should be added to that sentence, or that it should be somehow clarified, you're free to suggest an edit or make it yourself.
The only factually correct statement that you made to justify your wholesale deletion of this well-sourced contribution was that I didn't go into the legal cases stemming from the plagiarism affair. That is correct, and since you raise the issue, I'll remedy it by adding in a few sentences about those legal cases. However, I can hardly see how you would infer that I was introducing bias against Guttenberg by not mentioning legal action against him.
You have no grounds to delete this material. If you want to be constructive, try to improve it, rather than simply deleting it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Thucydides411: Thanks for your reply, which might reveal the origin of misinterpretations of policies here: with Causa Guttenberg there is a separate article covering the aspects of the plagiarism scandal in great detail. This article was a split from this article according to WP:SPLIT. Following WP:CORRECTSPLIT the main article requires a good summary of the sister-article's subtopic, here Causa Guttenberg. As for your summary, you obviously did not closely read the sister article. According to your statement the new summary relied on your personal research only (In my review of the newspaper coverage of the plagiarism scandal…). Therefore, you may want to read Causa Guttenberg:
  • as for your statement I gave weight to what reliable sources chose to cover. That's how WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP work – you'll find many more aspects covered by reliable sources at Causa Guttenberg; it might be of interest for you that almost 50 percent of the sister article covers the time following Guttenberg's resignation; including more than 90 reliable sources;
  • as for your statement I found no criticism of the University of Bayreuth, you may want to read some of these sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6;
  • as for your statement Understandably, the news media found the widespread borrowing of unsourced texts in Guttenberg's dissertation to be more interesting than the fact that the guy who founded the Guttenplag wiki holds an SPD membership card (something that nearly half a million people in Germany hold), you may want to take a look at WP:BIASED for a more sensitive handling of obviously biased sources, especially if they are in stark contrast to other sources; in our case the attorney's findings, as you will find here; in addition, this statement might also indicate some editorial bias on your side according to WP:NPOV;
  • additional information on Guttenplag you will find here;
  • as for your reply on my indication, that your summary lacked information on Guttenberg's request to revoke his title, your summary correctly stated that Guttenberg renounced his title temporarily on 18 February 2011, but missed out his request to revoke the title permanently three days later; you will find it here;
  • also, your summary stated that Guttenberg had requested one report from the Bundestag's research department and inserted it into his thesis without attribution to the author; in contrast to your summary, the university commission identified at least six reports which were used as you can find in Causa Guttenberg#Commission's findings.
Due to the fact that your summary violated several important policies, I will replace it with the previous summary. Prior to any future edit I would kindly ask you to address the given concerns – in contrast to your previous revert which was some way ahead of the reply. As you also requested additional input at WP:GSWN and WT:GER, you may want to wait for other editors' contributions also and refrain from adding the disputed content once more following WP:CONS. Happy Thanksgiving!-- Dewritech (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Happy Thanksgiving to you too, Dewritech. You keep repeating that my summary violates all sorts of policies, but your reasoning is extremely flimsy. Essentially, you're saying, "I don't like X, Y and Z details in your summary, so I'm going ahead and deleting the whole thing." If you have specific issues with the summary, we can work to address them. But you're deleting the summary wholesale, based on minor and, I think, erroneous objections. Here, in detail, are replies to your various points:
  • "[I]t might be of interest for you that almost 50 percent of the sister article covers the time following Guttenberg's resignation; including more than 90 reliable sources." The reliable sources are the measure of what constitutes balance, not the sister article. My summary follows the reliable sources, as it should. If you want it to focus more on the aftermath, you're welcome to add content. But mass deletion isn't the answer.
  • "[A]s for your statement I found no criticism of the University of Bayreuth, you may want to read some of these sections." Again, the reliable sources are our guide. Very few deal with criticism of the University of Bayreuth. That was a very minor aspect of the scandal. If you can show that criticism of the university was a major part of the scandal, then we can add in mention of it.
  • "[Y]ou may want to take a look at WP:BIASED for a more sensitive handling of obviously biased sources, especially if they are in stark contrast to other sources." Again, we're going by what the reliable sources say. They often cite and discuss the Guttenplag wiki, but criticism of the founder did not figure prominently in the scandal. I'm honestly perplexed at your attitude here: do you think that a short summary should mention some fringe criticism of the Guttenplag wiki founder, or are you claiming that the Guttenplag wiki's work (i.e., the long list of borrowed fragments, with citations to the originals) is all wrong? You're advocating that we bring fringe theories into the article. Pardon me, but I think it is your bias that is showing, not mine.
  • Again, criticism of the Guttenplag wiki founder did not figure prominently in the scandal. If you think it did, then do a LexisNexis search and show your findings here.
  • "[Y]our summary correctly stated that Guttenberg renounced his title temporarily on 18 February 2011, but missed out his request to revoke the title permanently three days later." Since you think this is an important detail, I'll add in a clause mentioning it. That's more appropriate than deleting the summary en masse.
  • "[T]he university commission identified at least six reports." We can clarify this in the summary.
The way I'm approaching this is as follows: I've written a well-sourced and concise summary of the plagiarism scandal. You're raising individual objections, which we can discuss and use to improve the summary. I will revert any mass deletion of the summary, because such deletion is completely unwarranted. -Thucydides411 (talk)
Thucydides411: Once more you reverted first and answered then. As your summary still violates relevant policies, I will remove the biased Guttenplag thumb and add the corresponding tag. I will answer in greater details soon.-- Dewritech (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Dewritech, you can't simply assert that the summary "violates relevant policies" and is "biased" without explaining, in detail, what policies are violated and how the summary is biased. You still haven't done that. You assert that the Guttenplag image is biased, without giving any explanation, other than that the founder of Guttenplag is an SPD member. You also erroneously assert that Guttenplag is in "stark contrast to other sources," despite the fact that Guttenplag is widely cited by reliable sources. The claim that it is in "stark contrast to other sources" looks to be entirely to be based on your original research, based, it seems, on erroneous interpretations of the public prosecutor's statements. You can't simply delete sourced material and add tags without explanation, which is why I'm reverting your last edit. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Thucydides411: Unexplained POV tag? You may want to explain how this on-going discussion does not prove a POV-related dispute.
I explained in detail, what policies your summary violated as you can read above.
You named several WP policies in order to support your personal concept of NPOV, but I'm not sure whether you are familiar with their specific details:
  • According to WP:RS Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered
As for NPOV here are some of the many reliable sources your summary missed out:
  • criticisn of Guttenplag/its founder (most of them from his German article)
[6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]
As for the Guttenplag thumbnail you may want to read its caption: 1.218 plagiarized fragments from 135 sources vs. district attorney's findings of 23 copyright violations; difference more than 480 percent. Therefore, no original research and erroneous interpretations.
So far you haven't addressed the concerns related to the quality of your summary. You just repeated your claim, that it followed reliable sources. But your summary is imbalanced and ignores significant views. Therefore, it violates WP:RS and WP:NPOV.-- Dewritech (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Dewritech, you can't just put up a POV tag without explaining, in detail, how the "Plagiarism and resignation" section is POV. Despite your claim that you explained this in detail above, I see no such detailed explanation. You continually assert that the section violates all sorts of policies, but you don't explain exactly what about the section is in violation of those policies.
For example, you're claiming that the section violates WP:RS. Yet your only substantiation of that claim is that you found reliable sources that the section doesn't cite, and that the section doesn't cover every detail of the plagiarism scandal that you'd like it to cover. The summary I wrote relies heavily on reliable sources, and nearly every sentence cites multiple reliable sources. We're not required to cite every reliable source, and we're not required to discuss every minute facet of the plagiarism scandal. We're required to provide sufficient citation from reliable sources, and to give weight to the aspects of the scandal that news coverage gave the most weight to. The summary does both of those things.
To address your specific bullet points:
  • Criticism of awarding process by Norbert Lammert, President of the Bundestag. In the article you linked, you'll note that Lammert's criticism is primarily of Guttenberg's behavior during the plagiarism scandal. The summary already notes this criticism.
  • Universty's commission's legal basis questioned. Much of the criticism of the university in the articles you linked is for being too lenient on Guttenberg. The articles note that the University of Bayreuth received heavy criticism for not taking up the issue of whether Guttenberg hired a ghostwriter to write a dissertation. However, the summary only devotes a total of two sentences to the University's inquiry commission. Criticism of the University -- both from academics who were upset about its leniency towards Guttenberg and from Guttenberg's lawyers about the existence of the plagiarism inquiry -- did not figure prominently enough in the scandal to merit space in such a short summary of the scandal. If you think those criticisms do merit space, then you can make that argument, but don't just slap a POV tag on the summary because you have one small quibble about whether a particular detail should be mentioned.
  • criticisn of Guttenplag/its founder (most of them from his German article). The list of articles you link here barely makes sense. First of all, some of them are dead links. Second of all, some of them don't even mention Guttenberg, Guttenplag or Vroniplag. Third of all, some of them are not even articles, but letters to the editor. Where did you get this list of links? But of the articles that actually do deal with Guttenplag, none suggests that the accusations against Guttenberg were incorrect. Most deal, in fact, with whether "outing" people for plagiarism is socially acceptable. Only a few actually discuss the Guttenberg affair at any length, and they don't suggest that Guttenplag's findings were incorrect. In fact, one subject that your list of web links leaves out is the fact that Guttenplag received the Grimme Online Award ([22]), which is a prestigious prize given for quality online publications.
You claim that the Guttenplag image is at odds with the statement of the public prosecutor in Hof. But this supposed conflict is not mentioned by reliable sources. It's based instead on your interpretation - I think eroneous - of the prosecutor's statement. Here's what the Süddeutsche Zeitung reported about the prosecutor's statement: "Dabei seien in seiner Doktorarbeit 23 Passagen entdeckt worden, die strafrechtlich relevante Urheberrechtsverstöße seien" ([23]). In English: the prosecutor said they had found 23 passages that might be relevant to a criminal plagiarism case. You're reading into that statement that the prosecutor is claiming that only 23 sources at all were plagiarized in the dissertation. But that's not what the prosecutor claimed: the prosecutor did not say that they did an exhaustive search of all plagiarized fragments, and they did not say that every instance of plagiarism was relevant to a criminal case. You're making a very tenuous argument here - one the reliable sources do not themselves make. That's why I called your assertion that the prosecutor's statement contradicted Guttenplag's findings "original research."
Finally, you state that "So far you haven't addressed the concerns related to the quality of your summary." You haven't raised any substantive issues with the overall quality or balance of the summary I wrote. You've raised a number of minor points (I didn't cite a particular source, or didn't mention a particular criticism of the University of Bayreuth), and then made the blanket statement that the summary violates WP:RS and WP:NPOV.
I think you're looking for minor quibbles and then using them to assert that they somehow taint the entire summary. That's highly counterproductive. I actually think that the "Plagiarism scandal and resignation" section is the best written and sourced section in this Wiki article. If there are individual details you think should be altered, I'm more than happy to work with you on them. But the way you're approaching this - deleting mass sections because and slapping a POV tag on the section because of minor details you'd like changed - is simply disruptive. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Constantly ignoring policies and removing tags is disruptive. We need a good summary of Causa Guttenberg here. But your text ignores many aspects of the subtopic. It's POV.--Polmandc (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Polmandc, exactly what policies are violated, and in detail, how are they violated? What aspects of the subtopic does the summary I wrote ignore? In exactly what way is it POV? You can't simply delete massive amounts of well-written and -sourced material, unless you give a good explanation as to why. The onus is on you to explain exactly how policies are violated, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Just compare your summary with Causa Guttenberg and you will find many aspects that your summary ignored, and this ignorance violates several policies (see above). An interesting aspect: you made no edits at all to Causa Guttenberg but wrote a summary of this subtopic.--Polmandc (talk) 06:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Polmandc, again, exactly which aspects does the summary ignore? Exactly which policies does it violate, and how? You keep repeating that the summary ignores "many aspects" of the subject and "violates several policies," but you don't say which aspects and policies those are, and how they're ignored and violated. And how does deleting the entire summary help address those supposed problems? Before you delete large amounts of well-written and -sourced text from the article, don't you feel any need to explain why you're deleting it? I put significant effort into writing a good summary, and you come here and delete it, without so much as an explanation as to why. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Aspects which your summary ignored and policies violated were highlighted by Dewritech several times. No need to list them again. Your text is definitely not the best written and sourced section in this Wiki article.--Polmandc (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
And even without looking at any specifics of the text it is obvious that it not a summary. The whole idea of having a separate Article is to move the details to that said article and only have a summary pointing to said article here.Agathoclea (talk) , 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Polmandc, you wrote that "Aspects which your summary ignored and policies violated were highlighted by Dewritech several times." But this is simply untrue. You and Dewritech certainly have claimed many times that my summary violates WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:CORRECTSPLIT and WP:BALANCE, but neither of you seems to think it necessary to ever explain how I've violated those policies. And when I ask either of you how I've violated those policies, you either raise entirely irrelevant points (for example, Dewritech has said I violated WP:RS because they found a source that I didn't cite - as if I'm required to cite every reliable source ever written) or you tell me you've already explained it. Most importantly, neither you nor Dewritech have explained why deleting the new summary in its entirety addresses any of the issues you say it has. It looks like you two are just looking for excuses to avoid covering the plagiarism scandal in this article.
Agathoclea, I encourage you to look at the specifics of the text. It is well-sourced, is relatively short (only a small fraction of this entire article, and much shorter than Causa Guttenberg), and covers the most publicized aspects of the scandal. The point of WP:CORRECTSPLIT is that if a section in an article grows too large, it can be shortened to an appropriate length, but treated in full in a separate article. I think the summary I wrote of the plagiarism scandal does that well: it spends a sentence or two on each major aspect of the scandal, leaving a more extensive treatment of the subject to Causa Guttenberg. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thucydides411, as it might help you, I will give an overview of some topics missed out by your summary again:

  • Guttenberg's letter with his request to revoke his title
  • Lammert criticism of University Bayreuth's awarding process
  • University's commission's legal basis questioned
  • Disputed neutrality of commissions report
  • Criticism of university’s former vice-president
  • Accusations against Guttenplag of running a partisan campaign
  • Guttenplag founder identified as founder of an SPD election campaign (a study of his German article might be helpful for you)
  • As for the attorney's decision you missed out its conclusions which were in contrast to the commission’s findings; your argument that the prosecutor did not say that they did an exhaustive search of all plagiarized fragments is entirely without foundation; after more than eight months of investigations we can assume that the attorney analyzed the entire thesis

Therefore, your summary was very detailed on Guttenberg's critics but entirely missed out other criticisms. This imbalances violated WP:NPOV and also WP:RS as both sides are referenced by reliable sources. Your summary also violated WP:WEIGHT as it did not fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. Your statement that Lammert's criticism of Guttenberg is relevant but his criticism of the university is not relevant may indicate a certain editorial bias. As for the Guttenplag thumbnail, your caption at first mentions "claimed plagiarism" but later presents its findings as facts. I don't say that the findings were wrong but we have to bear in mind that other findings were in contrast. As WP:BLP requires a conservative writing with high sensitivity this thumbnail is not appropriate. It might be of interest for you, that the German Wikipedia presents it in the sister article also. WP:CORRECTSPLIT requires a good summary of the subtopic. Your summary violated several important policies and so I replaced it with the previous summary. Following last year's RfC I don't oppose an expansion here based on consensus. Your five reverts and two irregular removals of POV tags weren't helpful for consensus. Maybe you want to present a new working draft on Talk so we can reach a consensus for a new summary.-- Dewritech (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Dewritech, thank you for listing your concerns with the summary. However, it's not enough to simply list topics that the summary left out. If those topics are going to be included, we have to know that they are important enough to be included in a short summary. Keep in mind that I kept the summary to four paragraphs, which naturally means that we can't cover every aspect of the plagiarism scandal - that's what the article Causa Guttenberg is for. We have to choose what the most important aspects to cover are.
What is confusing for me is that at first, you and Polmandc were arguing that the summary should be only three or so sentences, but now you're arguing that it should be expanded to cover at least seven additional aspects of the scandal, beyond what the summary I wrote covers. And then because my summary doesn't cover every aspect, Polmandc deletes the entire summary, replacing it with four sentences. I can't follow the logic here. Is the summary too short or too long? Why does the fact that it doesn't cover every detail of the scandal mean that it should be replaced with a summary that covers far fewer aspects of the scandal?
I'll go through the individual aspects you'd like included in the summary. Perhaps some of them merit inclusion - I'm open to discussion and compromise, as long as you don't simply delete the entire summary again:
  • Guttenberg's letter with his request to revoke his title: We already mention that Guttenberg abstained from the use of the title "Doctor." His request that his degree be revoked might merit inclusion, but I'm not sure. I'd be open to including this if you think the sources emphasized it.
  • Lammert criticism of University Bayreuth's awarding process: The problem with including Norbert Lammert's criticism of the initial awarding of Guttenberg's PhD is that it veers off into a somewhat different subject than the focus of this article, which is Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg. I definitely think that the criticism that Lammert and others voiced of lax scrutiny of PhD candidates belongs in the larger Causa Guttenberg article, but I'm not convinced that in a short summary (4 paragraphs), it deserves space.
  • University's commission's legal basis questioned: What language would you propose for this topic? I think we could perhaps include one sentence about it (at risk of inflating the summary, which I thought you wanted to avoid).
  • Disputed neutrality of commissions report: Can you provide some sources for this? Who was disputing the neutrality? If it was a major aspect of the scandal, then we can include it. But given the lack of mention of it in the sources I've read, it doesn't seem to have been a major aspect of the scandal.
  • Criticism of university’s former vice-president: This seems very tangential to the scandal. I thought we were trying to keep this summary concise, but now you're asking for a very minor aspect to receive mention.
  • Accusations against Guttenplag of running a partisan campaign: Can you provide reliable sources that specifically accuse Guttenplag of running a partisan campaign against Guttenberg? Earlier, you posted some criticism of Vroniplag (accusing it of "mobbing"), but as far as I'm aware, the criticism of Guttenplag was not a major part of the scandal. You'll notice that we also don't mention the Grimme Online Award, which Guttenplag received. Again, we're trying not to expand this summary into topics that received much less coverage.
  • Guttenplag founder identified as founder of an SPD election campaign (a study of his German article might be helpful for you): This received very little coverage during the scandal. It looks like you're trying to load the summary up with every criticism that was ever made of Guttenplag and the University. But understandably, most coverage focused on the revelations that the Minister of Defense had apparently plagiarized most of his thesis, and that he was forced to resign over the issue. Do you really think that in a 4-paragraph summary of this scandal, mention of Guttenplag's founder's political history deserves space?
  • As for the attorney's decision you missed out its conclusions which were in contrast to the commission’s findings: Do you have reliable sources which claim this? There's no use in us arguing over whether the prosecutor's findings contradict those of the University commission and the Guttenplag wiki. We disagree on this point. The important question is not our personal opinions, but what reliable sources say. So again, can you provide reliable sources that state the prosecutor contradicted the University commission and Guttenplag?
I disagree that my summary was POV. You reference the German Wikipedia article on Guttenberg as a model. If you look at my summary and the summary in the German article side-by-side, you'll discover something interesting: my summary was written explicitly to mirror the German article's summary. My summary is no more POV than the German summary is, and in fact began as a translation of the German summary. I then did the work to find English sources for each of the major points, and to make small modifications to more accurately follow the sources, and to improve the flow of the summary. I later added in short paragraphs about the University's commission and the public prosecutor, based on your complaints that they deserved mention. But if you think the German article's summary obeys WP:CORRECTSPLIT and is not POV, then I don't see how you can claim my summary violates those policies. The German summary also does not mention most of the topics you'd like my English summary to mention. Is the German summary POV? If not, then neither is the English summary I wrote. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely no need for a German text here, not consistent with policies.--Polmandc (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Polmandc, I can't discern any meaning from any of your posts. "Not consistent with policies" means absolutely nothing if you don't explain what policies are being violated and how they're being violated. I explain my views on how we should improve the page at length, and then you reject them with empty one-liners. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Thucydides411: I gave the overview of topics missed out by your text in order to show that it was POV. And I don't want to go into details once again, as all the information and references you requested can be found in the Causa Guttenberg article. As for the length of the summary, you may remember that already back in 2015 I spoke in favor of a modest expansion. This was also in line with the result of the RfC you initiated earlier. This on-going discussion shows the difficulties of drafting a short summary on a complex topic like the Causa Guttenberg. And in general, I prefer four sentences NPOV instead of four paragraphs POV! Especially when there is a sister article on this topic.
As for the German Wikipedia, it's not ours to judge their decisions related to policies like NPOV, etc. As for Guttenberg, due to the fact that Guttenberg still steers many political emotions in Germany, the assumption of some imbalances might not be a far-fetched thought though. This is not our decision. But we also must not take another Wikipedia's texts to replace summaries on topics of split articles within the English Wikipedia. It's my personal impression that in the English Wikipedia many articles on international topics are written with much less editorial bias than respective articles in national Wikipedias. Just imagine some editor replacing the English summaries on certain topics of the conflict in the Ukraine with translations from the Russian or the Ukrainian Wikipedia. That doesn't work!
Therefore, if you want to improve the summary you may want to write a summary of the English article Causa Guttenberg without POV and present your working draft on Talk.-- Dewritech (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
As for your other deletions, you may also discuss first.-- Dewritech (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
The subsection "Plagiarism scandal and resignation" is not a summary of the Wikipedia article Causa Guttenberg. As policy requires, it's a summary of the subject. And as for POV, Dewritech, you won't find it in the summary I wrote, which goes over the major issues in a neutral tone, with plenty of reliable sources, in a way that closely resembles the German summary of the subject.
I've tried to compromise with you. In my last post here, I proposed including a number of the subjects you want included in the summary, and I asked you for your recommendations on how we should include them. But instead of working with me, you choose to go and revert every single change I've made on this article, and don't respond to a single of my proposals.
Given how hard you've tried to keep anything but minimal mention of the plagiarism scandal in this article, and how resistant you've been to any sort of constructive engagement, I'm beginning to lose the good faith I had going into this. I frankly think you simply don't want the article to deal with the plagiarism scandal, and you're throwing up whatever policy you can find - WP:CORRECTSPLIT (which you interpreted in a completely nonsensical manner), WP:POV (which you're applying to neutrally written and balanced text) - as a justification for your repeated deletion of well-written and -sourced material. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Thucydides411: As for good faith, your edit behavior creates doubt. Obviously your text is neither a summary of Causa Guttenberg nor of the topic. In great detail I listed many aspects that your text missed out as it didn't follow NPOV. Your answers were repeated requests for additional information and references which can easily be found in Causa Guttenberg. In addition, the policies violated by your text and the thumbnail added, were described and cited in great detail, but disregarded by you.
Another interesting detail: you asked Agathoclea to review this case – but after Agathoclea had declined your text(!) you ignored their input.
Twice you deleted POV tags, which had been added to your text, asking for specific reasons –against the background of this on-going discussion(!). You also ignored requests to present some working draft on Talk prior to publication, in order to reach consensus. Finally three editors opposed your text, but you have reverted five times and added the text again.
With your last reverts you also removed several details from the article (memberships in political organizations and details about the EU initiative) with misleading edit summaries. Therefore, I will revert and follow WP:DIS.-- Dewritech (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Dewritech, you write that
"Obviously your text is neither a summary of Causa Guttenberg nor of the topic."
That's an absurd statement. My summary is obviously a summary of the topic. You've objected that various minor details are not included in that summary, but that doesn't change the fact that my summary covers the major elements of the scandal - the initial discovery of plagiarism, the denials by Guttenberg, the criticism by academics and politicians, Merkel offering her support for Guttenberg, Guttenberg giving up his Doctor title, the University revoking his PhD, Guttenberg resigning, the university's inquiry, and the deal with the prosecutor. Yet because I didn't mention some minor details of the case (a particular person's criticism of the university inquiry, the political affiliation of a minor figure in the scandal who's not even mentioned in the article, etc.), you label the entire summary "POV." And then instead of inserting the elements you think should be included, you delete the entire summary. That's what convinces me of your bad faith.
The plagiarism scandal is one of the most notable elements of Guttenberg's biography, and you're attempting to remove it from the article. Rather than addressing your minor NPOV concerns by adding in the elements you think are missing, you've repeatedly deleted the summary of the scandal wholesale. That's dishonest editing, and it's transparent what you're trying to do here.
And at the same time that you protest my supposedly POV summary of the plagiarism scandal, you fight to include material in the article which is blatantly POV (e.g., the line, "In the tradition of his grandfather Karl Theodor von und zu Guttenberg, he is a strong proponent of German-American friendship and Transatlantic Cooperation," which is written in a highly un-encyclopaedic fashion), which is not even written in grammatical English (e.g., the list of Guttenberg's memberships, which is not even formatted in any recognizable fashion), and which is not even directly related to the subject of the article (e.g., the long description of the "No Disconnect Strategy," which is only tangentially relevant to Guttenberg, and which is written like marketing material). You're deleting one of the most notable parts of the article, and then filling it up with poorly written fluff.
I've discussed these issues at length with you, but since your agenda is clear, I don't see what further discussion brings. Unless you agree to stop trying to prevent inclusion of the plagiarism scandal in this article, there's no way to make progress. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I'll also add a comment on your following point:
"Another interesting detail: you asked Agathoclea to review this case – but after Agathoclea had declined your text(!) you ignored their input."
Agathoclea commented that they did not look at the summary. I would still appreciate currently uninvolved editors, including Agathoclea, looking at the summary and making suggestions for improvement. What I would not appreciate is Dewritech claiming that small omissions render the entire summary POV and then using that as an excuse to delete it. If Dewritech wants to contribute positively, how about proposing concrete changes to the text to add in the material they want included? -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Thucydides411: You may want to read the comment of Agathoclea more closely: And even without looking at any specifics of the text it is obvious that it not a summary. The whole idea of having a separate Article is to move the details to that said article and only have a summary pointing to said article here. In addition you may also want to read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.-- Dewritech (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Point being that anything that needs a detailed explanation or balancing goes into the other article. So the whole bickering of what detail is relevant or not or balanced or not goes over there. Here only a summary of the highlights. Agathoclea (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Agathoclea: We have to write a summary of the subtopic here. Given the notability of that subtopic, the summary has to be a few paragraphs in length (this was the outcome of the earlier RfC) - I wrote four. As you say, we should include only the highlights - the most important points. Without looking at details of the text, how can you know whether the four paragraphs I wrote are a good summary of the subtopic? I would really appreciate it if you could read through the summary I wrote, and say what you would add/remove/rephrase to make it better summarize the subject. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Der Spiegel in 2009, regarding Karl-Theodor Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg.[6]

It's important for wikipedia's reliability to have a disclaimer about the citogenesis incident, rather than neglecting it entirely, which comes off as sweeping it under the rug.

Honestly, any page that has been involved in a citogenesis incident should have such a a disclaimer, whether it's on the main or talk article.52.119.105.14 (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karl-Theodor_zu_Guttenberg/Archive_3&oldid=1256594100"