Talk:Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Slashdot

See http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/10/2211220 for the Slashdot community's reaction to this alleged controversy. -- tbc (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, the issue isn't with this article I think but with the German Wikipedia's article. This article was only created like two days ago from the looks of it. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Specifically, here. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

But since the German article must have been approved by someone before it was picked up by Der Spiegel, it does demonstrate that Flagged Revisions isn't as foolproof as Jimbo might like to think. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What happened: Last year I put in Karl-Theodor’s middle names in the German Wikipedia page in part to help distinguish between him and his like named grandfather who also had an article. (Having a long list of names is fairly common among German Catholic aristocrats.) The day after (Febuary 8) he was announced as the new minister in the German cabinet, a flood of edits appeared in what was a sleepy article. In the flood of edit was an anonymous edit adding a erroneous name Wilhelm. With a flood of edits no one noticed right away. The German press picked up his long list of names from the German Wikipedia and published the name including the erroneous Wilhelm. At that point another person on Wikipedia brought to my attention a possible circular source. I pointed out the original source had no Wilhelm. Although I knew this unfortunately I did not remove the Wilhelm as major German media were using it and perhaps they knew something I didn’t know. Someone else removed the Wilhelm and Guttenberg publicly stated his real name and the origin of each middle name.--CSvBibra (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

@Arwel Parry: According to this, the responsible user's right to approve an article had already been revoked once because he had approved articles without even having a brief look at it in the past (using a different name). just for the record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohannMöller (talk • contribs) 18:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Funny that I found the wrong order of his names on the international Wikipedia page. I took the liberty to fix it along with a reference... :) -- Claudius Steinhauser (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

no 2nd state exam

According to the German version of this article zu Guttenberg does have a doctor's degree, but is not a fully qualified lawyer because he has never tried to pass the Second State Exam. So he couldn't work as a lawyer or judge. --Mk4711 (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Bar Exam is missing, finished dr.-degree in 2007.

Apparently plagiated large parts of his thesis, removing only the indications of original authorship (thereby giving proof of malicious intent). Refer to de: version for further info; it's current events though so adding a note and then waiting a few days is probably best. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Reichsfreiherr?

Can he be a Reichsfreiherr when the Holy Roman Empire (the Reich) which grants it legitimacy has been defunct since 1806? --Ilja.nieuwland (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Reichsfreiherr is rather a technical description than a real title. Actually this word was only invented AFTER the end of the old empire when the kingdoms of Bavaria, Württemberg, etc. started to "make" new nobility. It was used (or is used) in order to emphasize that a family like the Guttenbergs are of much older nobility than the "new" nobility of the 19th and early 20th century. --93.130.215.206 (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Just as nobles who received their status from Napoleon retained it long after Napoleon was gone. As pointed out by 93, it's more of a description meaning he is a Baron (German: Freiherr) deriving his title from the Holy Roman Emperor. Jolanak (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

accused of Plagiarism

source:http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,746132,00.html

-- can please someone move the plagiarism from the "policital career" section to the section stating that he "holds a doctorate in law"? Also note that plagiarism is self-evident and not something ruled upon by a judge (except where copyright infringement is touched) or promotion committee or ombudsman -- they will only discuss the grade or withdrawal of the academic title.

More references in the German Wikipedia. There is also a Wiki to collect plagiated material, <http://de.guttenplag.wikia.com/wiki/Plagiate>, to 'assist the [verification] work of the Bayreuth promotion committee' and 'to ensure the integrity of the doctor's title' <http://de.guttenplag.wikia.com/index.php?title=GuttenPlag_Wiki&oldid=8293>

The wikia list of copied passages (mentioned above) has already identified 51 examples, including several translated from English originals. They can all be seen (original and 'Guttencopy') by following the links on that page. The Financial Times Deutschland yesterday ran with the headline "Freiherr zu Copy-and-Paste". It's not looking good for 'KT'. --TraceyR (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The way it is phrased now, it is not actually clear that the accusations of plagiarism are related to his doctorate. 128.40.82.38 (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Those are politically motivated allegations from an obscure, far-left extremist ("politisch motivierten Angriff von ganz Linksaußen")[1]. That doesn't make them true, and they are of no relevance to this article whatsoever. Jolanak (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

lol. The plagiarism is very well proved, the most obvious cases are published in every major German newspaper from whatever part of the political spectrum. Your link is an article from two days ago, when the story was still unfolding (and by the way from a low quality right-wing boulevard magazin). Your opinion is obviously very distorted and of no relevance. 128.40.82.38 (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Focus is right-wing? ROFL. Focus belongs to the liberal mainstream (FDP leaning), is one of Germany's largest media and is highly respected. Jolanak (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Highly respected by whom? By you? I only read it when I am at the GP waiting to see the doctor (the medical doctor not the science doctor ;) ), and I am always again astonished on how bad this publication is (I guess it is telling that they never really been seen as on one level with Der Spiegel, even though the reputation of the Spiegel was also going down in recent years, and the Focus started with the stated goal of competing with it). Anyway, I guess we are going of a tangent here, it still is clear that the article is two days old, when the information just began to become public and that by now no credible person in Germany has any doubts anymore that Guttenberg had make "mistakes" (even Guttenberg admits that much). 128.40.82.38 (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC) ps in the German political spectrum the dominating business wing of the FDP is to the right of the political spectrum, I haven't heard that the Focus was a strong supporter of civil liberties.

"Verteidigungsstaatssekretär Christian Schmidt (CSU) sagte, hinter den Vorwürfen stecke eine "Kampagne", er sprach von der "kommunistischen Ypsilanti-Initiative" [Ypsilanti = the disgraced former leader of SPD in Hesse]. "CSU-Generalsekretär Alexander Dobrindt meinte, Deutschland habe "eine geistvollere Opposition verdient als SPD und Grüne, die sich mit dem Abzählen von Fußnoten und Anführungszeichen in juristischen Dissertationen abmühen". Guttenberg selbst sagt, er sei durchaus bereit, zu prüfen, ob bei über 1.200 Fußnoten und 475 Seiten "vereinzelt Fußnoten nicht oder nicht korrekt gesetzt sein sollten". Dies würde bei einer Neuauflage berücksichtigt werden." "Auch sein Doktorvater Peter Häberle nimmt ihn in Schutz, die Kritik sei "absurd, die Arbeit ist kein Plagiat"."[2]

I hardly see the relevance of this far-left smear campaign for an encyclopedia, if he made a few errors concerning the footnotes, it's not relevant to this article. Jolanak (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That is an improvement, now you at least cite an article from yesterday ;) Anyway, that his political buddys from his own party called it a communist campagne is no proof that it indeed is one. The statement of Guttenberg you are citing is as you may know superceded by his own concession from today that he did not cite correctly and that he would refrain from using his title until the matter is decided by the university. He did not make a few mistakes with the footnotes, but there is ample evidence that he did harm scientific standards in such a way that he might actually lose his doctorate over it. 128.40.82.38 (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The Guttenplag wiki site currently claims that 176 pages contain unattributed passages from other authors (44.8% of the dissertation's pages). It would require a significant suspension of disbelief to claim that this is just carelessness. Even if only half of these were actually plagiarised, that would still be a massive copy & paste job (there's a Guttenberg layout keyboard on sale on ebay with just the Ctrl, A, C and V keys present!). Of course it's difficult for CDU/CSU fans to see the right wing's shooting star suffering a massive loss of credibility and of course the other political parties are enjoying the Schadenfreude, but it is laughable to claim that this is an organised ultra-leftist campaign. The law professor who started the ball rolling stated that he was not politically motivated; many are just (just?!) concerned by the damage being done to the German academic establishment. Perhaps those protesting are concerned that their doctorates will also come under closer scrutiny! --TraceyR (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

German Defense Minister Drops Doctoral Title http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703803904576152133795077772.html http://slatest.slate.com/id/2285645/

I think it has by now become evident that Jolanak is offering an extremely biased perspective. You can view the actual instances of plagiarism on this website here: http://de.guttenplag.wikia.com/wiki/Plagiate , which I've done (I read and speak German). It's frankly breath-taking, the extent to which the work was copied. Often 2+ paragraphs at a time, lifted entirely. Regardless of the intentions or orientation of the leftist think-tank that discovered this, the fact of the matter is that his dissertation was heavily plagiarized, a fact which has nothing to do with the politics of those who exposed it. The current number is that 65% of all pages contain some plagiarized material, a number so outrageous it seems likely that he simply had the paper written by someone else, who was sloppy.89.247.43.37 (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The latest breaking news at The Spiegel is that Guttenberg asked the Parliamentary Scientific Services (Wissenschaftliche Dienste des Bundestages, WDdB) available to MPs to support their parliamentary work, to prepare a paper which he then inserted in its entirety (10 pages), with very minor changes, into his thesis. The author was not credited, just the WDdB. Guttenplag wiki now reckons that 67.94% of the thesis' pages contain plagiarised passages. --TraceyR (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism noble "title"

Hi,

I cleaned up the article a little bit by removing most of the paragraph discussing the question of how to address a "Baron". That does not have anything to do with Mr. zu Guttenberg, I do not know why such gossip is in the Wikipedia. Someone vandalizing user restored what I had removed and now the article is locked and I cannot correct it anymore. Could someone please undo those changes. I guess now that Mr Guttenberg gets quite much attention it is embarrising to have such bullshit in the wikipedia.

Thanks, ajf 109.202.224.91 (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Hide fringe religious source, no reason to give it free airing on this talk page. --TraceyR (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Look Who Survived WikiLeaks | Columns". theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God. 2010-12-02. http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=7706.6286.0.0. Retrieved 2011-02-18. I would suggest that this source doesn't warrant the description WP:Reliable source here. For those willing to sift through the recent WikiLeaks dump — and specifically what it reveals about German politics and the meteoric rise of Guttenberg —i n the context of Bible prophecy, the discoveries become all the more riveting. Guttenberg’s affinity for the U.S., for example, is important in light of the prophecy in Ezekiel 23, which reveals that in the end time the United States (as well as Britain and the Jewish state) would “dote on her lovers,” the Germans. Regarding this prophecy, Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry has explained that the U.S.-Germany relationship will appear to improve. He has warned: “The U.S. trusts Germany—our lovers, as Ezekiel calls them (Ezekiel 23:4)—more than we trust God! That could be the worst foreign-policy mistake we have ever made—or ever will make.” Isn’t it logical that Guttenberg, a man the U.S. State Department considers a “strong transatlanticist,” might attempt to forge such a relationship? For decades, the Trumpet (and the Plain Truth before us) has explained the prophecy in Daniel 8 which reveals that in the end time a unique individual will emerge to gain control over a German-led federal superpower. If you aren’t familiar with this prophecy, request and study Daniel Unlocks Revelation. This was the prophecy Mr. Flurry had in mind when in September 2009 he identified Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg as a man to watch. In the February 2010 issue of the Trumpet, Mr. Flurry explored the prophecy of Germany’s rise further, and warned, in the context of this strongman of Europe prophecy, that we should “watch Guttenberg. After parsing the WikiLeaks dump and learning more about the personality and growing list of impressive accomplishments of Germany’s defense minister, we feel compelled to say it again: Watch Guttenberg!” The article also contains a link to a page entitled "From the Editor: A Special Warning: Germany’s Long History of Deadly Deceit" which warns about Germany's economic and military strength. Here is a sample: Germany shares a large military base with the U.S. in Alamogordo, New Mexico. They also have several other military facilities in America. We have an open-skies treaty with Germany. They are free to fly all over America. The U.S. trusts Germany — our lovers, as Ezekiel calls them (Ezek. 23:5, 9) — more than we trust God! That could be the worst foreign-policy mistake we have ever made — or ever will make. The article attempts to analyse current events based on a somewhat idiosyncratic and controversial interpretation of Old Testament prophecies. IMO this cannot be considered reliable. What do others think? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC) I agree. In the spirit of WP:ONEWAY, I have removed this religious fringe source from the article. I have also removed the text which was backed up by the citation because biographies of living people should not contain unsourced claims. I have no objections to returning the same or similar text with a better source. Hans Adler 09:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Spiegel report on BLP violation

Minor BLP violation was briefly reported by Der Spiegel. Nothing to see, and certainly no reason to perpetuate the BLP violation on this talk page. Hans Adler 16:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
New name - move the article? According to the Spiegel, he is now "Karl Theodor Xerox Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg": http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,746074,00.html However I also found different sources claiming "Karl-Theodor Xerox zu Googleberg-Guttenberg" Richiez (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC) The purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to this article. Jolanak (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Rule that links should only be set once?

Is there a wikipedia guidline that words should only be linked the first time they appear? If that is so "secretary general" should also be unlinked (and possibly other words), if not his grandfather should be linked again. I do not see what the advantage is of linking only once. 109.202.224.91 (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Have a look here for guidelines: Wikilink#Repeated_links --TraceyR (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no section on repeated links on the page cite by you... 109.202.224.91 (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Finger trouble! The correct link is Wikipedia:Wikilink#Repeated_links. 07:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Amazing coincidence?

"Unterdessen wurde bekannt, dass ein mit dem Minister verbundenes Unternehmen die Uni Bayreuth, an der Guttenberg promovierte, unterstützt hat. Die Rhön Klinikum AG bestätigte, dass sie zwischen 1999 und 2006 einen Lehrstuhl für Medizinmanagement mit 747764,36 Euro förderte. Guttenberg war von 1996 bis 2002 Mitglied im Aufsichtsrat der Firma, an der seine Familie bis dahin beteiligt war. Der Lehrstuhl ist an derselben Fakultät angesiedelt, an der Guttenberg studierte. Darin einen Zusammenhang zu sehen, sei "abenteuerlich", sagte ein Sprecher der AG. Am Dienstag hatte die Uni betont, es habe keine Spenden Guttenbergs gegeben. Am Donnerstag erklärte die Uni, die Lehrstuhl-Förderung sei kein "Sponsoring-Projekt" gewesen." (http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/verteidigungsminister-plagiatsvorwuerfe-guttenberg-bediente-sich-bei-sechs-bundestags-expertisen-1.1064636 Süddeutsche Zeitung)

Roughly:

1. Gutenberg was a member of the Supervisory Board of the company Rhön Klinikum AG from 1996 to 2002 (his family owned a tranche of shares in the company (note:until 2002)).
2. Over the period 1999 to 2006 Rhön Klinikum AG financed a Chair of Medicine/Medical Management to the tune of 747,764.36 Euros.
3. This chair is attached to the faculty in which Guttenberg studied.
4. A company spokeman stated that it would be bizarre to make a link between the two facts.
5. The university had emphasised on Tuesday that Guttenberg had made no donations.
6. It also stated that supporting the Chair wasn't a sponsorship project.

Honi soit qui mal y pense? --TraceyR (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Where does the hyphen come from?

In the list of given names, no hyphen appears between Karl and Theodor. Was his name changed at some time? Is it official, or is it just something else Guttenberg has carelessly added? --TraceyR (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The Ministry of Defence website uses Karl-Theodor with a hyphen[3]. I believe it was added by his parents, possibly to distinguish him from his grandfather. Jolanak (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not footnoted or otherwise attributed, and we could not yet determine where it has been taken from.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Guttenplag wiki

While the current plagiarism accusations obviously need to be covered, the "guttenplag" website on wikia.com that has been instrumental in documenting them can itself hardly be counted as a reliable source in a sensitive WP:BLP issue like this. Details about how much and what exactly was plagiarised should only be included if they are vetted by much better sources, in the absence of an official competent review that will hopefully determine things at some stage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Several reliable sources (eg Der Spiegel, Die Zeit) are reporting on the Guttenplag results; can these therefore be considered secondary sources? --TraceyR (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The number of white pages (i.e. pages without plagiarised passages) gets smaller by the day. This is the state today (28 Feb. 2011), with 73.79% of pages containing plagiarised text(s). Only those shown as white have (as yet) no such passages.

--TraceyR (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Historical event in the Bundestag

User:Jolanak has removed a paragraph about an historical event in the German parliament, in which several opposition members called Guttenberg a "liar, fraudster and confidence trickster". The Süddeutsche Zeitung, in every sense of the WP definition a "reliable source", reported that this was the first time that this sort of description had be allowed without a point of order being raised by the Speaker and without apologies being demanded. This could be interpreted as tacit admission that the description was deemed valid by the Speaker, the coalition partners and Guttemnberg himself, but that would be OR and isn't an argument for its inclusion here. None of the reasons given by Jolanak for removing the information (with the source) was valid, but instead of simply reverting I'd like others to give their view(s) on this. My view is that this is (a) relevant to and important for the article and the section, (b) of historical importance and therefore 'encyclopaedic' and (c) in no way makes the section too long (a silly argument anyway). It reeks of POV editing and that is also a serious problem. Other views would be appreciated. --TraceyR (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the event is sufficiently relevant and significant to be mentioned. Someone even said in the Bundestag that this was a novelty, and although the accusations were repeated, the Bundestag president did not interrupt. In fact, the CDU/CSU applied to the Bundestag's Ältestenrat (council of elders) for a rebuke for these characterisations, and it was explicitly denied. (Unfortunately the relevant Bundestag protocols have been taken offline, and I don't know where to find Ältestenrat protocols.) This was discussed in the media.

The section in question is in fact already too long, but that's mostly because a lot of detailed information was added as events unfolded. The problem should be solved by rewriting the existent information as a summary and dealing with the new information more briefly, not by censoring new information. If nobody else does it first, I will do this in a few days. Hans Adler 11:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Media sources would be better than the protocols anyway - primary sources are prone to interpretation and original research issues. This is certainly significant enough as well as the fact that Prof Lepsius from U of Bay repeated the fraud accusation despite legal threats by Guttenberg. But WP has no deadline and I expect the University has no other choice than make the accusations official and will do so. Richiez (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact that some opposition member uses libelous invectives against the article subject is

1. trivia, not encyclopedic information
2. undue. It's likely also a violation of the policy on biographies of living people

The section needs to be reduced and possibly rewritten as suggested. Trivial information about exchanges of invectives that are problematic for a number of reasons cannot be included. Indeed the inclusion of such material "reeks of POV editing". Jolanak (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

BLP applies to talk pages as well. I think the libelous accusation against the article subject needs to be removed from this talk page. Jolanak (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not some opposition member and it is only your interpretation that it was a libelous invective, this view is unsupported by media.

The fact that he has been accused of fraud by the current head of the relevant faculty is not a BLP but a fact. http://www.bz-berlin.de/aktuell/deutschland/uni-prof-sind-betrueger-aufgesessen-article1128187.html Richiez (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not a member of the opposition? Is it a member of the government?

The fact that some university professor uses invectives against a federal government minister is hardly relevant in the biography of the minister. Also, it doesn't really add anything of value to the article (apart from the fact that Mr. John Doe described him as a liar or whatever). The article already describes all the facts. If and when he was is convicted of something that is against the law, or there was some formal procedure, we could mention it. But we cannot mention every invective private individuals, whether they are university professors or one of the 600+ members of parliament, use against a government member - just imagine what George W. Bush's biography would look like. We need to have some sense of proportions here as well. Vladimir Putin was also accused of the same thing, the article is not full of invectives and does not give the incident undue weight – Putin and Guttenberg are both notable as politicians, not as academics. The Chancellor's, and thus the government's, position on that matter is that it is a private affair that has now been concluded. Jolanak (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you have missed that some was in italics, perhaps it makes more sense when you realize that. If you want to stick with your own reality it is fine but you do not own this article. Richiez (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It is relevant to the article about Guttenberg that he is at the centre of a major scandal about academic standards, that he has had a doctorate obtained by dishonest means revoked and that he is the first member of the Bundestag (and therefore the first government minister) to have been accused of being a liar, a fraudster and a confidence trickster without having been protected by those responsible for maintaining parliamentary discipline (which can only mean that they considered the accusations to be true); in other words, it was not invective but the truth. All of this is relevant to the article about Herr Guttenberg. --TraceyR (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Did someone dispute that the doctorate controversy ought to be mentioned? Did someone dispute that the actual facts should be mentioned? That his doctorate was revoked on the basis of insufficient citations is a fact. That someone called him a liar etc., however, is just that individual's opinion and not a fact. Your vivid interpretation of this event sounds terribly like original research. I wouldn't call this an academic scandal for the reason that he's not an academic (i.e. a person employed by an academic institution and/or an active researcher), it's primarily a "private affair" as the Chancellor described it that's used politically by the opposition, in that respect, it's a political affair (although it's astonishing that some opposition members consider the footnotes in an obscure dissertation more important than e.g. an ongoing war). Jolanak (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 

Jolanak: Here are the facts: 1. He was called "a liar, fraudster and confidence trickster" in the Bundestag (by Oppermann, Trittin, Sager). This is a fact, not original research, as is shown by the source reference. 2. This is the first time that the Speaker has allowed this to happen without raising a point of order. This is a fact, not original research, as is shown by the source reference. 3. It is a scandal about academic standards in Germany. Even a professor at the university at which Guttenberg presented 'his' doctoral thesis has said that they had been deceived by a confidence trickster. This is a fact, not original research, for which reliable source references are available. 4. Honest academics in Germany are up in arms at Merkel's handling of the Guttenberg affair, e.g. calling it, as you say, a "private affair", which they consider trivialises the serious matter of academic fraud. This is a fact, not original research, for which reliable source references are available. 5. A Russian professor by the name of Belov has stated that he is disappointed by Germany's handling of the matter and is worried about the impact that this could have on Germany's academic reputation. This is a fact, not original research, for which reliable source references are available. No "vivid interpretation" is needed: these are the facts. Perhaps it would be instructive to read the article about John Profumo (as it happens, a genuine Baron!); the section on the Profumo Affair links to a separate article. Since you think that the section on the Guttenberg affair is getting too long, maybe we should consider creating a separate article about the Guttenberg affair to cover it in detail. --TraceyR (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

What you have here is a long list of "synthesis of published material that advances a position". If a Russian or a German professor said something about Guttenberg, it doesn't mean it belongs in this article. The interpretation of the alleged lack of disciplinary action in the Bundestag remains highly speculative original research, which btw. would belong in the biography of the parliamentarian in question and not Guttenberg.

A separate article could be possible, the name however should be the title of the book/dissertation, not "Guttenberg affair" (the German Wikipedia has an article about the dissertation: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verfassung_und_Verfassungsvertrag ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolanak (talk • contribs) 01:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. It is by now a well established fact that Guttenberg has committed fraud. I can write this here under my real name because it is not just obvious to anyone who has looked at his dissertation, but has also been confirmed by the successor of Guttenberg's advisor, by a former member of Germany's federal constitutional court, and by a lawyer who specialises on plagiarism. There is general agreement among German law experts that there is no doubt about Guttenberg's (criminal) intent.

This is not synthesis because all these things have been reported in press articles about the Guttenberg affair, in context. Hans Adler 08:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The thesis per se is not notable and certainly undeserving of an article. The scandal, involving as it does the issues of plagiarism, academic standards, a current senior German cabinet minister and a major political problem in an election year in Germany, is probably notable enough to warrant an article. I suspect that by the time the scandal has come to its inevitable conclusion, it will be notable and will require its own article. --TraceyR (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, the dissertation is clearly notable. It's published by Duncker & Humblot and has received extensive (albeit negative) media attention. Even the deletionist German Wikipedia has an article about it. I've seen articles about much more obscure books. If this was the dissertation of Barack Obama, it would have its own article by now. Jolanak (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The only established fact is that his thesis was withdrawn for insuffient citations and admitted errors. The university did not accuse him of "fraud". As far as the "inevitable conclusion" is concerned, the conclusion was reached several days ago when the Chancellor decided the affair has been concluded and that Guttenberg remains the Minister of Defence. The opposision parties are free to disagree, but they are in minority. I suppose Guttenberg's status as Germany's most popular politician, even after the affair, counts more for the Chancellor than the opinion of opposition members who are trying to use this issue as political ammunition. Jolanak (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC) 

See this thread for many other established facts. It is wishful thinking to imagine that Merkel decides when a public scandal ends. The university has attracted a lot of criticism for not investigating the allegations of fraud. When the commission (inevitably) reports that the thesis was produced with fraudulent intent, Baron Guttenhausen's fall from grace will be swift and final. There may even be repercussions for the professors who assessed it as 'summa cum laude'. Watch this space! --TraceyR (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

A few recent developments

• "Unionsfraktionschef Volker Kauder forderte dagegen ein Ende der Debatte. Zu Guttenberg habe auf seinen Doktortitel verzichtet und damit müsse es gut sein, forderte der CDU-Politiker." (CDU fordert Ende der Debatte über Guttenberg)
• "Bundesforschungsministerin Annette Schavan [...] fordert eine zweite Chance für Guttenberg [...] "Wir wissen, dass das nicht der erste Fall ist, in dem jemand gute politische Arbeit leistet und zugleich in einem anderen Bereich seines Lebens Schuld auf sich genommen hat", betonte die CDU-Politikerin. Scharfe Kritik übte sie an der "Maßlosigkeit", die aus ihrer Sicht die politische Debatte geprägt habe." (Schavan: Plagiatsaffäre ist keine Lappalie)
• CSU in Niederbayern stellt sich hinter Guttenberg
• Also see this analysis: "Entscheidend ist, was Angela Merkel will." Das Kalkül der Bundeskanzlerin scheine zu sein, "die Sache auszusitzen, und wenn es am Ende doch so kommen sollte, dass Guttenberg der Union mehr schadet als nützt, ihn als Minister fallen zu lassen", meinte Falter.
• The role played by Germany's largest newspaper, Bild, has been remarked on by some. Apparently it has very actively defended Guttenberg, and probably contributed hugely to his continued popularity. Jolanak (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"Das Verteidigungsministerium plant eine große Werbekampagne für den Dienst bei der Bundeswehr - und will exklusive Anzeigen schalten. Wo? Natürlich in der in "Bild", der "Bild am Sonntag" sowie auf bild.de."Klassikradio -"The Ministry of Defence is planning a big advertising campaign aimed at recruiting for the army and wants to place adverts exclusively ... where? In "Bild", "Bild am Sonntag" and Bild.de, of course." A master-class in the cynical manipulation of public opinion. --TraceyR (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that there is very little point in continuing this and similar threads. Wait and see what develops. --TraceyR (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

So there is political support for Guttenberg from his party and coalition. I don't think that's new or surprising. What is new, but also not surprising, is that more and more CDU members, including the research minister, the president of the Bundestag ("Sargnagel für das Vertrauen in unsere Demokratie"), the prime minister of Sachsen-Anhalt and the former prime minister of Thüringen, now indicate more and more clearly that Guttenberg committed (intentional) fraud and that ignoring/denying the fact is not a viable strategy. [4] Hans Adler 09:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

An important development: German academics have written an open letter to Frau Merkel to protest at her handling of the Guttenberg Affair. To date over 49,000 people have signed it. There is an English translation avaiable here. Support is crumbling even within the CDU and CSU. It's like watching a Greek tragedy unfold. Sad for the reputation of German universities, tragic for Guttenberg. --TraceyR (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Investigation?

It's impossible to academically and formally investigate a doctoral dissertation comprising hundreds of pages in just two days. Similar processes elsewhere took a few months (at least). It's clear that the University of Bayreuth did not in fact undertake an actual investigation of the whole dissertation, but acted upon Guttenberg's own request and admission that the dissertation contained errors. See [5]: "After requesting that his alma mater withdraw his doctor title in the face of accusations that he plagiarized large sections of his dissertation, the University of Bayreuth complied on Wednesday evening [...] The university, however, stopped short of a judgement as to whether Guttenberg had intentionally sought to mislead the university. Such a finding, Bormann said, would "surely have been an extended process" -- one that the university deemed unnecessary after Guttenberg himself had requested earlier in the week that the university withdraw the title." Jolanak (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, zu Guttenberg had no other choice after it became obvious that the university would need to revoke his doctorate, given the overwhelming evidence. It was not necessary to determine whether 68% or 86% of the pages contains text that has been copied from other sources without attribution.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That is likely true, but my point referred to the claim that there had been an investigation undertaken by the university. It seems the university just decided to revoke the doctorate based on Guttenberg's admission of errors, without an investigation in the formal sense, that it would be impossible to conduct in just two days. Jolanak (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but there is nothing in the article that says that the university had conducted an investigation of its own. The university could use what volunteers had already investigated, especially at de.guttenplag.wikia.com, and may have one some checks with regard to the accuracy of these results. As one tenth of the amount of unattributed text would probably have been sufficient for revoking the doctorate, and as zu Guttenberg himself asked the university to revoke the title, that checks may not have been as extensive as it may have been otherwise.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I did understand it the university did look at a small sample of the text. The university can not simply revoke a doctorate by request, at least according to some newspaper articles, but must give a reason. In this case the reason stated was serious flaws in the thesis and they obviously can not claim this reason without having verified at least one of the flaws. Meanwhile the university declared they will do an extended verification to determinate if it was a case of deliberate fraud http://www.nordbayern.de/nuernberger-zeitung/nz-news/plagiatsjager-haben-30-politiker-im-visier-1.1025011 Richiez (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The university had more than two days to start working. The first news about a possible copy-and-paste dissertation are from Feb. 16. The degree was revoked on the 23. BTW, that would still be too little time to analyze the thesis, however, to discover copied parts, not. Quest09 (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry

Is it normal for a subject's ancestry to be described in the text in such detail - 3 or 4 generations back - especially when a detaily family tree is provided which duplicates this information? Surely this level of detail is provided by the enthusiast websites and is superfluous to Wikipedia's requirements. --TraceyR (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It's entirely normal for articles on nobility and royalty. Pointing out the most interesting ancestors (with Wikipedia biographies) is also normal, you have to know Austro-Hungarian history really well to know the significance of the name/title "Count of Meran", for instance, and the family tree is kind of hard to read for the non-specialist. His ancestry is frequently remarked on in the press and even if you don't think it's interesting, a lot of other people who read this article likely do. Jolanak (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 

This kind of detail is common in Wikipedia articles, but it should not be because it makes no sense. It needs to be removed everywhere it doesn't have specific relevance, in the same way that we are removing other trivia sections and similar unencyclopedic stuff. The excessive family tree is also beyond the pale. This kind of thing makes no sense unless we want to implicate a lot of living people in the con acts of this one man, just because they are distant relatives. Hans Adler 10:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It makes sense to many readers. Wikipedia is also written for those who read The Sun, not only for the readers of The Morning Star. Jolanak (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

What on earth does that mean? --TraceyR (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Jolanak is referring to certain local newspapers? In any case the argument seems to be that it's OK to fill Wikipedia with trivia because silly and stupid people are more interested in trivia than in encyclopedic facts. However, Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia. I believe the right wiki to apply for the creation of a Wikimedia project that covers trivia is to make a formal proposal on meta.wikimedia.org. Hans Adler 14:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Does he really think that readers of the Sun care about the intricacies of ex-aristocratic German family trees? My impression is that the Sun encourages its reader to hate all Germans, ex-aristos or not! Amazing and increasingly abstruse postings from Jolanak!

The point was that many readers are interested in such information, and that such material can be found in almost any article on people with notable ancestors in the English Wikipedia. The German Wikipedia is different. It's not "trivia", not any more than similar information found in articles on members of the British royal family and high aristocracy. Jolanak (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The undisputed fact that many readers are interested in trivia is not relevant. The comparison to British high aristocracy makes no sense for two reasons:

• AFAIK the Guttenberg family has never been high aristocracy.
• Nobility has been formally abolished in Germany (almost a century ago) but not in the UK. Of course it continues to exist in people's minds, but in general it's not very important.

When articles about German nobility form the patterns of articles about British nobility, then this can be explained as follows:

• They get less attention here than on the German Wikipedia, so the nobility cruft is often not cleaned up.
• Editors simply assume that German nobility should be treated analogously to British nobility. But it should not.

And in any case, stuff like extensive family trees should never be duplicated across multiple articles when there is a single parent article (about the family) that can easily hold the information. Hans Adler 22:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If you took the time to read the section and family tree, you would discover that Guttenberg descends from numerous princely families, including his grandmother, a Princess of Arenberg, his great-grandmother, a Princess of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Rosenberg, and just a few generations back, a souvereign prince of Liechtenstein, Aloys II, Prince of Liechtenstein, Georg Christian, Prince of Lobkowicz etc. etc. So yes indeed, Guttenberg counts among his close ancestors numerous princely and royal people. In English the term "high aristocracy" is frequently used in a more broader sense, not only counting patrilineal lines, and then can be used broadly to include people such as Zara Phillips who is neither royal nor noble by patrilineal descent. Of course German nobility should be treated analogously to British nobility.

Guttenberg's family tree is not "duplicated". Most of it doesn't belong in the article on the Guttenberg family because it has simply nothing to do with the Guttenberg family, it's his (KT's) non-patrilineal ancestors, his mother, his grandmother and so forth. His non-patrilineal descent from souvereign princes belongs in his biography, but not in the article on the Guttenberg family. Jolanak (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

An interesting footnote: at least one source plagiarised by the Robber Baron had already been plagiarised by his source. Do we need a family tree for his sources too? ;-) --TraceyR (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

In any case the details of his plagiarism are more notable in the real world than the details of his family tree. And of course merely being related to high nobility doesn't make him high nobility, even in the minds of those who are trying to perpetuate this anachronistic concept. A family tree that includes his great-great-great grandparents is just ridiculous and has no place in an encyclopedia, for anybody. Hans Adler 04:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the family tree is simply based on one of the standard templates in Wikipedia, which includes 6 generations and is used in hundreds and hundreds of articles. I chose this template because some of his interesting ancestors are found in generation 6 (Franz, Count of Meran, two princesses of Liechtenstein and others). Jolanak (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If this stupid template is being used in hundreds of articles then that's a problem that should be fixed, not exacerbated. Hans Adler 23:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Resignation from the cabinet

Could someone please change Jolankas one-sided propaganda section. Thanks, Clumpytree (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Jolanak (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 

With the cut from Stephan it is already better, however, when one includes the statement from Mrs Merkel, that her heart is broken (or something like that) and that she hopes for a political comeback of Mr Guttenberg, then one should also include that most critiques say that his step was too late to save his reputation, that his attempt to blame the media is disgraceful and that even though he might have a chance for a political comeback he will probably never again be seen as a candidate for the highest political positions (i.e. chancellor). - Clumpytree (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. It is the chancellor who accepts or rejects his resignation, and her statement on the matter belongs in the section. In a separate article (as previously discussed), the reaction of other sufficiently notable people (e.g. Steinmeier) would also belong. Jolanak (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 

Nonsense. Either one includes the arguments of all relevant sides, or none. But just having the political opinion of Mrs. Merkel and nobody else is POV. ... by the way, I do not consider Mr Steinmeier notable :D Clumpytree (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. A private individual is not the chancellor. It's only for the chancellor to accept a resignation. Jolanak (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. You are not just reporting the fact that she accepted the resignation but all sorts of recentism/news/POV about her political classification of the case. Clumpytree (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. Jolanak (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You did not start your statement with "Nonsense"! ;) Anyway, you also forgot to even pretend to give an argument for your position... Clumpytree (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Err, I might be wrong on this, but IIRC, it's not Mrs. Merkel who has to accept his resignation but the President of Germany, Christian Wulff! Amirite? 217.93.173.44 (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot the secret password "Nonsense" 217.93.173.44 (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

New biographical information

Research by two journalists of conservative daily FAZ has produced considerable insights into Guttenberg's life prior to entering professional politics. Findings will be published in a biography this year, yet a recent news article already contains some (http://www.faz.net/-01ovok). The German version covers this new information, which should be added here as well. There may also be a need to reorganise the article accordingly.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by M. Bleib (talk • contribs) 18:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

POV issues

Please have a look at the German Wikipedia Article about Guttenberg ("5: Plagiatsaffäre und Rücktritt") to realize that the user Jolanak has been spreading lies about the affair on here, to deliberately distort your image of the whole scandal. from the beginnings ("far left smear-campain", lol), to the public reaction & political reaction, and his resignation, Jolanak presents everything in a favorable light for Guttenberg and dismisses any criticism as speculation or "obscure, left-extremist" but that is totally not the case, as you can see in the german article. considering that jolanak joined wikipedia feb. 23rd, I suspect all he signed up for is to influence the creation of this article, and not to the better.

Thanks, I believe everybody noticed that Jolanak tries to push propaganda here ;) ... unfortunately he can edited semi-protected articles and I cannot :( Clumpytree (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Jolanak is really trying to get banned as soon as possible for outrageous POV pushing. [6] Unfortunately I can't revert this extremely tendentious edit because there has been too much reverting in this article already. The open letter was reported all over the media, including the international media, as a key factor leading to Guttenberg's resignation. Hans Adler 18:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Says the propagandists. Unfortunately, it's you who should be banned for excessive pov pushing in this article. It seems clear that your mission here is portray Guttenberg negatively, incuding by adding negative trivia material, AND at the same time the unjustified removal of non-trivia sourced relevant material that balances the picture, such as your revert-warring against the compromise version by Stephen Schulz (i.e. the one including the Chancellor's official statement on the resignation where she accepts it). A person who claims that the Chancellor's official statement on the resignation is "trivia", while the actions of some students on the Internet is not, is clearly not here to write a balanced and encyclopedic article. Jolanak (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There are many other articles where you can continue your good work undisturbed but I have the very strong impression that you are not willing or able to handle this article without pushing your POV and agree with Hans. Richiez (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding the official statement by the Chancellor from the press conference where she accepts the resignation that was submitted to her (and only one sentence in the shortened form by Stephan Schulz), under the section on his resignation, has nothing to do with "POV". Removing this very important information, or adding campaign-style trivia about Internet campaigns against Guttenberg, is outrageous POV pushing. This talk page is full of comments by users who clearly identify very strongly as anti-Guttenberg and anti-government. Insisting on neutrality is not POV. The opposite is POV. And even if one user indeed was sympathetic to the government, it would no nothing wrong with that when the article is also edited by several users pushing anti-government POV, as seen above, and as seen from the article's current POV state. It seems that certain users are unable to edit this article in a neutral way. Jolanak (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no mystery here. Jolanak's user page tells us that his purpose on Wikipedia is to write about 'nobility' and royalty. The problem for him here is that the subject of this article, a (minor) aristocrat, has committed serious breaches of academic regulations (using passages of authors' works without giving them the credit), has misled the public and parliament ("abstruse", "absurd" suggestions) and will probably be found to have intentionally deceived the university and the wider academic community with his plagiarism. This is hard for a professed royalist and aristocracy-lover to admit, hence Jolanak's attempts to present Guttenberg in as favourable a light as possible. As more and more of Guttenberg's 'mistakes' come to light, it will become harder and harder to maintain the pretence of a 'noble', upright, honest aristocrat who made mistakes under the pressure of juggling parliamentary work, academic demands and bringing up a young family. Time is not on Jolanak's side. --TraceyR (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, one can even speculate that nobility is a matrix for bold plagiarism of this type, as it can instil people with an inappropriate sense of entitlement. The case of a man with the sonorous last name "Prinz von Preußen" is remarkably similar. [7] The Guttenberg plagiarism affair has already led to a parliamentary advance to strip the nobility of their special names. One can speculate that a "Karl Theodor Guttenberger" would have had less first names and a more realistic self-perception.

So far as Jolanak is concerned, I note that almost all this user's edits so far seem to relate to the Guttenberg family, plus a few odd ones that are in other ways related to the Guttenberg affair. It's definitely not nobility in general. Hans Adler 06:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Has he therefore earned the right to bear the letters SPA after his name? I had wondered whether Jolanek was Karl the-odor Guttenberg's alter ego, but since Jolanak sometimes specifies sources for his edits I decided he must be someone else. --TraceyR (talk) 07:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

So far it's a borderline case of SPA. I don't think Jolanak is close to Guttenberg in real life, and there is not enough evidence for me to say what I do think. Hans Adler 07:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Information that needs to be included, either in this article or in a separate article

• The Chancellor harshly criticized those who had demanded Guttenberg's resignation, stating that "so much hypocrisy and mendacity was rare in Germany" and that the opposition was not seriously concerned with scientific standards but merely used the affair to attack the government(Merkel wirft Guttenberg-Gegnern Scheinheiligkeit vor).
• His party leader Horst Seehofer also pledged to do everything in his power to make sure that Guttenberg remains a part of German politics (Colleagues mourn, opponents welcome, Guttenberg resignation, DPA).
• Opposition leader Frank-Walter Steinmeier however described the affair as a "humiliation of Germany's entire academic community" and criticized Merkel's reaction. (Colleagues mourn, opponents welcome, Guttenberg resignation, DPA).

Jolanak (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Why? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic, totally inappropriate. See WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:Recentism. Hans Adler 22:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me remind you that I am not the one who first expressed the wish for an article about a "Guttenberg affair". In such an article, the reaction of the Chancellor and the position of his party would belong. Jolanak (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not one of those who ever expressed the wish for such an article. In my opinion such an article is not desirable -- per general BLP considerations and per even more general considerations of the purpose of an encyclopedia and optimal presentation of our content. But even in such an article this would at most be borderline relevant. There are a number of facts that are a lot more relevant, such as Rhön-Klinikum's 3/4 million euro funding of a chair at Bayreuth university in the years 1999-2006. (In 1999 Guttenberg got his first state exam, reportedly with the lowest possible grade. In 2006 he handed in his dissertation, for which he received the highest possible grade in the following year.) [8] Hans Adler 23:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The time may indeed come, when the 'Guttenberg affair' will deserve its own article. It's too early yet, but when e.g. the university commission into Guttenberg's 'deliberate intent to deceive' has published its findings and/or the court actions brought against Guttenberg for plagiarism have been settled, it could be better for this article for the whole story to be told elsewhere. As mentioned elsewhere, an example exists at Profumo affair. --TraceyR (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The Handelsblatt yesterday reported that some 80 complaints have been made to the State Prosecutor's office, most of them to do with breach of copyright law, but none made by authors whose work had been plagiarised; the Bundestag is considering charges concerning the misuse of its research services by Guttenberg; and Bayreuth university's commission is investigating whether he deliberately deceived it when submitting his dissertation. See this report. --TraceyR (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Resigned as member of parlarment?

The article has just been edited based on an reporting from the MDR that Guttenberg also resigned as a member of parlarment... that is the first news article I have seen that claims that he gave up his position as MP. There is no statement from Mr Guttenberg yet that says he will give up that position (he said "political office" not "mandate", that is a difference). I assume the east german public broadcaster just did a mistake here, I would not trust this reporting without other news sources reporting the same, in particular saying on which actual word from Guttenberg they are basing their reporting. Clumpytree (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not a mistake. Guttenberg resigned from "all public offices". Initially there was confusion about whether this included his Bundestag seat, and the confusion was reported as such by the media. But by now the media all agree that he resigned from parliament as well. Hans Adler 09:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The CSU has a charismatic candidate waiting in the wings see here. --TraceyR (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Does he qualify for a minister's pension? If so, this should be mentioned. --TraceyR (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he does. But that seems to be fairly unremarkable - nearly all ex-ministers do. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Correction - probably no. If I read the law correctly (big chance ;-), he has to be a member of the government for 4 years, unless a new parliament convenes earlier, or the government changes, in which case 1 year and 274 days is enough (actually, it's two years, but "more than 273 days" counts as one year - hey, I don't make these laws, I just read them!). He gets a pension for his 9 years as an MP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering whether a minister who resigns in disgrace (or maybe one who is convicted in court, as Guttenberg might well be) forfeits the right to a pension. But no, the MPs make these laws! --TraceyR (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently he didn't do anything illegal connected to his office. He voluntarily resigned (under pressure, but not under legal compulsion). And we really want our politicians to not have their future livelihood to depend too much on the whim of changed political circumstances, as that would compromise their independence. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

KTG Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg

I was a little curious about the KTG but it checked out.--CSvBibra (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

He is also called Gutti. http://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/pro-guttenberg-demonstrationen-gutti-war-zu-gut-fuer-euch-1.1068350 http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article12708401/Wir-sind-laut-weil-man-uns-den-Gutti-klaut.html Googles Werk und Guttis Beitrag --Schmallspurbahn (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of Internet campaigns

The article includes material on an Internet campaign with 50,000 signatures against Guttenberg that received some press coverage. It seems that over 500,000 people are now calling for his return to politics, which has also received extensive coverage and has become something of a phenomenon.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15].

I don't know if the article should include material on such campaigns at all, but it seems clear that we should either report on both sides, or none of them. Jolanak (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a large difference betweeen the 50,000 signatures against him - most of them professors, doctorands and other educational people - and those from the campaign wanting him back. The latter campaign is mostly driven by the Springer press which had always backed him and those facebook accounts are hardly verifyable. --Denniss (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the main factor here is how much press coverage it receives (and whether it is likely to have any impact on his future). It's possibly a good idea to wait and see. Jolanak (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, wait to see whether it has any impact; even then, it would be hard to prove one way or the other. Of course it could also be the first (?) example of so-called "Astroturfing" in German politics - that would be notable! See the recent article by George Monbiot.

Perhaps those keen on the family tree of the Guttenberg family could explain the relationship between Guttenberg and "von Guttenberg", a senior manager at Bild Zeitung in Berlin. Is he "uncle three times removed"? I believe that they share a great-grandfather. --TraceyR (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

My brother, who is rather active on Facebook, has confirmed that a number of his acquaintances have outed themselves as part of the pro-Guttenberg crowd. He described them as three typical Bild readers and one manager type, so it does make sense. Of course this does not rule out that things were kickstarted with an astroturfing campaign, but I guess that would be very hard to prove.

Regarding the Bild Guttenberg, see [16]. Hans Adler 13:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That is the clearest explanation that I have seen. From the TAZ - chapeau! --TraceyR (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I must admit that 500.000 people on Facebook really is a quite impressiv number, maybe first time agreeing with Jolanak. From that persepctive it is similar to 50.000 people signing a petition. As an inclusionist, I would mention it in the article somewhere. The difference is that the scientist revolting had a real political effect, whereas what will become of the Facebook group is not yet clear. Still it is impressiv and has a potential to become an important political fact. Clumpytree (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Another difference between the 50,000 academics (and other clear-thinkers) and the 500,000 Facebook 'friends of Guttenberg' is that the former immediately recognised that their work and status had been devalued by Guttenberg (and Merkel); the 500,000 will have to wait a bit longer to experience the effects of their unthinking approval of dishonesty in high places. I have discussed the affair with several friends and acquaintances and it has been sobering to discover that some haven't appreciated what is at stake here. Die Zeit wrote a comment about his resignation speech (which seems to have impressed so many) which reached the conclusion that it was lacking in both decency and honesty, that he is still blaming others (e.g. the media) for his problems and still hasn't admitted what he did, nor has he shown any sign of regret, let alone repentance. The actions of his party friends are very revealing - the CSU obviously considers party loyalty to be more important than high standards of behaviour in the high offices of state. At least that should now be obvious to all. --TraceyR (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand your disappointment with people who are obviously not interested in any form of intelligence or decency (even worse cases were the approval for Mr. Koehler and Mr. Sarrazin I would say), and it can obviously formulated in a NPOV way that apparently 500.000 people do not care having a thief and liar as defence minister. Still, it is a remarkable support, which I believe is worthy to mentioned. And just because they are stupid or fight moral values that does not make them any less a person with human dignity and democratic rights to speak what they think is right. Clumpytree (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This facebook movement got some negative media attention as well, going as far that some compared Guttenbergs popularity with the popularity of a historical figure whose name is forbidden to be mentioned in any positive way. So although a very interesting phenomenon this should not land on Guttenbergs page prematurely. Richiez (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe there is no reason to suppose our former defence minister is a thief -- unless you count the family wealth, of course. I won't comment on "liar". Hans Adler 15:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I do believe that legal consequences have to be limited by time, and people should not be hold responsible for the deeds of their forefathers, so I would not hold his family wealth against him. However, it seems quite clear now that he stole intellectual property in "writing" his doctoral thesis. Clumpytree (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah. It didn't even occur to me that you might be using the over-the-top "piracy/theft" language for violations of intellectual property. I thought this was only used by big publishers and those who work for them. Hans Adler 17:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

To reduce wear and tear on the keyboard, specifically the inverted commas around 'writing' w.r.t 'his thesis' etc, perhaps we should use "collate" instead. ;-) --TraceyR (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The 570,000 friends of Guttenberg aren't really very active. According to this report, the Geesthacht branch of the youth organisation of the CDU organised a pro-Guttenberg demonstration in Hamburg today; the police estimated that 150 people turned up to support him; opponents probably outnumbered them. Similar demonstrations were planned in Berlin, Leipzig, Hanover and a few other towns and cities, including Guttenberg itself. Only there and in Berlin did appreciable numbers turn out; other demonstrations were cancelled for lack of interest. --TraceyR (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This would seem to fit to reports that support for the biggest pro-Guttenberg Facebook page grows linearly -- a very unlikely phenomenon unless it's an astroturfing campaign. Hans Adler 16:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Job offer from a consulting company in the USA

http://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/ex-minister-guttenberg-prueft-jobangebot-aus-den-usa_aid_605473.html --Schmallspurbahn (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Advert for the US/UK readers and foreign press?

From a german viewpoint i am wondering: 1. He is a politician, not a stock bull - his ancestors may be interesting to tourists, but what really counts in matters of FACTS are his statements and public acts; e.g. he was strongly criticised within germany for calling the bombing of afghans - killing 150, mostly civilians - "appropriate" in total. Later he corrected himself saying it was "inappropriate". The executing US-war-planes were orderd by some german forces (google: Klein+kunduz+guttenberg). 2. Moreover: A fact, more relevant to his "career" and performance is that he was born into one of the 300 wealthiest families within germany (see german wiki article). Financial aristocracy, "old money"? Not even we germans can read much about where the money is coming from. Apart from that, can anyone find an newspaper-article written by this "journalist" - could't find one... 3. Why stressing his wishful ties to foreigners in this unproportional extent? E.g.: "He speaks fluent English and has excellent contacts in the United States". In this abstract form the latter point is not worth mentioning within his bio! - interesting are simply his club-memberships (foreign policy etc.). 4. The "advice" to call him "Baron" is ridiculous - to make it clear: We germans do neither in terms of social conventions nor legal rulings care for (non-existing, phantasy) "titles" like King/Queen/Lord/Freiherr and so on. This doesn't say that we do not respect other conventions within other societies (for example within the "United Kingdom" etc.). In Germany all such "titles" were abondoned a century ago. Sorry, I do not want to disappoint potential tourists... I know you all are visiting germany to see the castles and the bavarian style and so on... ;) 5. I was reading the english version by accident... Please change this sheer advert, A.S.A.P.

Regards Chris (from Stuttgart) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.115.183 (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This is complete nonsense. By social convention, titles are widely used in Germany, and there is absolutely no kind of "ban" on titles. Hence, we use titles. Or as the mayor of his hometown said: "His correct title is Reichsfreiherr.[19] One addresses him as Baron. Here, one must know the correct titles. [...] He is simply the Baron."[17]. Mainstream German media widely refer to Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg as a baron (using the less formal term "baron" instead of "Freiherr"). Jolanak (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The ban on titles exists in Austria. People sometimes mix that up. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No, noble titles are not used in Germany. Different from Austria, the descendents of the German dictators are allowed to keep those words such as "Freiherr" as part of their family names, but they are no titles what-so-ever. 128.40.82.38 (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for far-left extremism. Baron Guttenberg is widely referred to as a Baron by German and international media, including by state broadcasters such as Deutsche Welle[18][19][20][21], by The Times[22], by The Independent[23], by Die Welt[24], and by countless other media. Jolanak (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

He might be called that, and if you think that is relevant, than one could maybe create a section on how media outlets wrongly refer to him as "Baron". Fact is, he is not a baron, he only has a "Freiherr" as part of his last name. An encyclopedia is mainly about facts. An section that elaborates elongated on how you should appropriately address Mr. zu Guttenberg with enough submissivness has no place in an encyclopedia, that has nothing to do with left-wing extremism, it is just about facts. 128.40.82.38 (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

He is indeed a Baron. Baron is simply the traditional form of address for a Freiherr (as stressed by the mayor of his hometown) and also used synonymously, as well as the English translation of the German term Freiherr[25]. This happens to be Wikipedia in English. Wikipedia simply reports what other sources that are considered reliable report. If the BBC[26], The Independent, The Times and other reliable English language sources refer to him as a Baron, them we refer to him as a Baron. It's that simple (even German government-owned media refer to him as a Baron in both English and German). Noble and princely titles are widely used by social convention in Germany, as demonstrated by countless reliable sources - the fact that titles don't have a legal status/privileges anymore doesn't change a thing (the exact same situation exists in France, i.e. noble titles are not enjoying official recognition, but are not banned either, and are used by social convention). Jolanak (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

„Reichsfreiherr“, doziert der Bürgermeister, sei die korrekte Titel-Bezeichung. „Und mit ,Baron’ spricht man ihn an. Die Titel muss man hier wissen.“ Es ist diese typische Ehrfurcht, die im ganzen Ort auffällt. „Er hat seinen eigenen Status“, sagt Hain. „Er ist halt der Baron.“ Jolanak (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not doubt that "Baron" is the form to address or translation of Freiherr. But as I said, he is no Freiherr, he is only called "Freiherr" (see article 109 - http://www.verfassungen.de/de/de19-33/verf19.htm ) as long as you cannot argue against that, I do not see a point in this discussion. If you want to call him "Baron" you can do so, if you want a wikipedia page on how conservative-right-wing people call people who have "Freiherr" as part of their last name, fine. But what does that have to do with a page about the current German defence minister? 128.40.82.38 (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It's his title, used by mainstream reliable sources. What's NOT relevant in this biography is far-left fringe views, such as the claims that he's not a Baron (a position that contradicts what reliable sources say). Your own interpretation of a legal text in a foreign language that does not mention Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg is not a reliable source (see Wikipedia:No original research for more). At the very best, you could find mainstream reliable sources on par with the BBC and The Times that claim specifically that Guttenberg (the subject of this article) is not a Baron, and we could add something along the lines of "some sources dispute that he's a Baron". Jolanak (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not my interpretation of a legal text, but the law in Germany. If you want, I can translate it for you, or maybe search for a translation. Of course one can add chapters about public perception and gossip (like that the mayor of his village likes to call him Baron) if one thinks that is relevant, but the factual description should not be changed by such gossip. Your argumentation is like showing pictures of a map and using that as prove that the world is flat, not recognizing a physics textbook as counter argument, because that would need the capability of understanding math. 109.202.224.91 (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously you didn't read the page I linked. It's your interpretation of a primary source and of no value as a source whatsoever. ("This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves"). You need a third party source specifically mentioning Guttenberg and addressing the specific question of whether he is referred to as a Baron. Apart from that, the primary and thus not reliable source you came up with does indeed not prove anything else than the fact that titles have no official privileges/recognition in Germany—the question of whether titles enjoy social recognition (are de facto used by reliable sources) is a different question. Jolanak (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so to summarize you agree that he is not actually a baron, right? So now the question is whether there should be parts in the wikipedia article that some people still call him baron. If you think that his mayor or some news-sources have called him baron is relevant then I do not object to that being in the article - and by the way, it currently is. I do not think such gossip is very relevant, but who cares, I also do not think that saving some server space is the most important aim for wikipedia. What however should not be put in the wikipedia (and for which you have shown no source at all) is any implicit or explicit statement of the form that a) Guttenberg is a baron (because as you admitted yourself that is just plain wrong), or b) that it is more correct to call him "Baron" or somehow you are supposed to call him a "Baron" (because that is simply right-wing POV and nonsense). 109.202.224.91 (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Almost all reliable sources in Germany generally refer to his as "Zu Guttenberg". A recent article published by The Guardian also uses this wording. Since 1918, there are no titles in Germany, other than academic titles. Guttenberg may be sometimes be called the "Baron" by some people in the region where he has grown up (that's what the article cited above is about), but this does not in any way reflect how reliable sources refer to him.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

But this is a factual error. Doesn't discredit the sources, it's just they use a colloquialism that doesn't translate easily. I'll try though: The full terms are von [place] and von und zu [place], the former meaning "noble house originating at or ruling over [place]", the latter "noble house originating at and ruling over [place]". Basically whether a particular demesne and the place of origin were geographically separate or not.

In this case, the Guttenbergs ruled the Guttenberg demesne and had their manor there, so they became known as von und zu. Since the zu part is unambiguous and implies the von und part, it's used as shorthand... he's already got 2 "standard-use" personal names and his family name is very long, so his "full" name - even if it's just the colloquial version without the "Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester" - is simply shortened by dropping the least informative parts, namely "Freiherr" and "von und". Dysmorodrepanis (talk)

Complete nonsense, as has already been demonstrated in this very section, reliable sources in both English and German, refer to him as a Baron, used as a title—including but not limited (in fact I'd say most news articles in foreign media point out his aristocratic background) to the following: The Times, The Independent, the BBC, Die Welt, Deutsche Welle. It's simply his title by tradition, courtesy and social convention in Germany. Claiming he's not a baron is original research and nothing else. The fact that he's also referred to by his last name only doesn't change the fact that his title is also used by reliable sources. Anyway, this is Wikipedia in English, so what's relevant is really the English sources, not the German sources (but even German media including state broadcasters refer to him as a Baron). As demonstrated, the highest publicly elected official in his own hometown (the mayor) stresses strongly that he must be addressed as a Baron, so at least de facto, his title enjoys official recognition. Jolanak (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

To the extent that you are talking about German media, you are being very misleading. They are also referring to him as a Freiherr (and only very rarely as a Baron). However, this is rather rare overall and only happens in contexts such as the following:

• when naming him, typically at most once in an article, by his full (or only slightly abbreviated) last name (in this context it's not a title but just part of his legal name);
• in blatant pieces of fluff journalism;
• in "man bites dog" style reporting about the anachronistic conditions in his home village;
• when making explicit references to his academic degree and his (de facto though of course not legally existent) title of nobility, as in "Vorerst will Guttenberg nur Freiherr sein" or "Ein Freiherr von reaktionärem Schrot und Korn" (two titles of news pieces I found on Google News);
• very occasionally as a way to avoid overuse of his name or personal pronouns;
• when poking fun at him, as in "Freiherr Dr. a.D." or "der Lügenbaron".

Most sources both in German and in English just use his abbreviated last name and do not refer to him as a Freiherr or Baron. There is also the following exchange from a Focus Online article (my translation):

FOCUS Online: What is the correct form of address for Freiherr zu Guttenberg now?

Schwind von Egelstein: Simply "Herr zu Guttenberg". The "Freiherr" is not mentioned in the address, only when talking about him. I don't believe that the title of nobility is particularly important to him. Whether he is Freiherr or Prince or just nice doesn't matter. Christian Wulff is also popular, although he is not aristocratic. [27]

Some people are trying to use Wikipedia as a tool for turning back the clock w.r.t. nobility. That's just a form of POV pushing. Hans Adler 00:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

@Jolanak: The bare word "Freiherr" in articles about him doesn't bring the special conclusion that it's a official title. Please read Freiherr#German title, last break. The references you can find in linked articles. Wikipedia is'nt as well a a place for "far-left extremism" (by talking about the subject "title or no title"...) red herrings and personal attacks on assumend political contrahents. --88.73.231.136 (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Some people are trying to use Wikipedia as a tool for campaigning against the nobility (and against mainstream opinion in Germany, and notably, in English language sources). Find some sources or just give it up. In this section, we have already seen numerous reliable sources in both English and German referring to him as a Baron, including The Times, The Independent, the BBC, Die Welt, Deutsche Welle (state broadcaster!) and Stern. Those who claim he's not a Baron, need to find sources that state Guttenberg is not a Baron—and in that case, we could write something along the lines of "whether he should be referred to as a Baron is disputed by some, who cite Germany's 1919 Weimar Constitution that abolished the nobility's privileges and official recognition". Btw., even in French he's widely referred to as a Baron by reliable sources[28]. Jolanak (talk) 12:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC) 

The question of titles is a question of tradition and courtesy, and whether titles exist as a social phenomenon (and in the end, of whether they are used by reliable sources, as we have already demonstrated they are). It's not a question of whether titles enjoy official recognition (in most European countries, such as France, Germany, Poland and Italy, they do not, but remain widely used socially). Wikipedia is full of articles about European nobility whose titles long ago ceased to be officially recognized, but who are, nevertheless, referred to by their titles by sources that are considered reliable.

I'd like to quote the mayor of Guttenberg, Bavaria once again, because it is indeed a very good statement: „Reichsfreiherr“, doziert der Bürgermeister, sei die korrekte Titel-Bezeichung. „Und mit ,Baron’ spricht man ihn an. Die Titel muss man hier wissen.“ Es ist diese typische Ehrfurcht, die im ganzen Ort auffällt. „Er hat seinen eigenen Status“, sagt Hain. „Er ist halt der Baron.“ Jolanak (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we draft a compromise version addressing both points of view. The "family" section is a good place to address this matter.

My idea is:

The House of Guttenberg was conferred the title of Baron (German: Freiherr) by the Holy Roman Emperor in 1700, and by courtesy and tradition, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg is addressed as a Baron socially, notably in his hometown of Guttenberg, Bavaria, and frequently by German and international media. However, since the adoption of Germany's 1919 Weimar Constitution, titles do not enjoy official recognition in Germany as such and are considered part of the name, although there are no restrictions on the use of noble titles in social contexts. Legally, his last name is Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg, which translates into English as "Baron of Guttenberg". In German, Freiherr is frequently abbreviated into "Frhr.", and von und zu into "v.u.z." or simply "z."

Jolanak (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking "Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg" would translate to something like "Baron of and for Gutten Mountain" there is no reason to translate part of the name, and leave other parts untranslated. (Not sure if "Gutten" means anything that could be translated as well.) 109.202.224.91 (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No, when you translate something, you don't necessarily translate it literally. There is ample precedent in English for translating German titles containing "von und zu" into simply "of", as the English language has no equivalent of "zu". Jolanak (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There are no restrictions on the use of noble titles in social contexts -- except that in most contexts using them in the way you seem to be advocating would be eccentric. You cannot prove that Guttenberg must be addressed as a Baron, based on (1) a news report about the astonishing fact that this is how he is addressed in his home town, and (2) a number of news reports that occasionally refer to him as a Baron or Freiherr. The latter are by far outnumbered by news reports that just refer to him by his last name in one or more of the numerous abbreviated forms and never refer to him using any title at all. It is simply a fact that the number of contexts in which it would be normal in Germany to address someone as a "Baron" or "Freiherr" is smaller than the number of situations in which it is normal to address someone as "Doktor". I guess it's still larger than the number of situations in which it's normal to address someone as "Magister", but the latter is truely negligible. (In Germany. Austria is completely different in this respect.)

But I don't know why I am still trying to discuss with you. "Find some sources or just give it up." What's the use of finding sources when you then simply ignore them? Schwind von Egelstein isn't someone you can simply ignore in this context. She is a member of the Deutscher Kniggerat, and in the interview she said very clearly that the right way to address Guttenberg is "Herr zu Guttenberg". That's excellent advice. By not omitting the "zu" you stay on the safe side without risking to sound ridiculous (even servile), as you would if you addressed him as "Herr Baron" -- unless you happen to know him from his home town Guttenberg, in which case I am prepared to believe it might be considered normal.

Your easter egg link from the words "mainstream opinion in Germany" to a Stern title page is not helpful at all. "Der coole Baron" in a Stern title does not prove anything about the way he is addressed. For instance, the current chancellor's last name is not Kohl [29], and Earth is not generally referred to in German as Unser wilder Planet.

Your proposed passage is too long and it is mostly off-topic. This is an article about the German defence minister, not about his family and not about obscure details of German law and etiquette. Most people who know him will know him from a context outside the town of Guttenberg. I am not even sure this level of detail would be appropriate for House of Guttenberg, since it's not even specific to that family. Hans Adler 18:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I never said anything indicating Guttenberg "must" be addressed as a Baron. This is simply a matter of reporting what other sources report, i.e. the fact that he is frequently addressed as a Baron socially, both in his hometown and by the media in Germany and abroad. I have never heard of an entity named Deutscher Kniggerat, there is no article in Wikipedia about it, and it appears to be a small private association. The person you are citing is just one person's opinion and doesn't trump the fact that other sources frequently refer to him as a Baron in the English language. No, I don't believe the text above is too long. It's slightly longer than what is currently in the article, but not significantly, and this appears to be a controversial issue judging from this discussion. I welcome suggestions to improve the text, so that it addresses both points of view fairly. Jolanak (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no controversy in the real world. The controversy is entirely manufactured inside Wikipedia, mostly by you. Outside Guttenberg (or possibly zu Guttenberg's own tiny circle of society), nobody in their right mind would address Mr zu Guttenberg as "Herr Baron". I am not sure that you have understood the fundamental difference between addressing someone and referring to someone. Sure you can refer to Guttenberg as a Baron or Freiherr. This is done often, but in no way consistently. When referring to him in German you have a choice between "[Herr] [zu] Guttenberg", "Freiherr zu Guttenberg", "der Verteidigungsminister" (the defence minister), "der Freiherr", "der Baron", and just "er" ("he"). In English you have basically the same choices. Referring to him as a Baron or Freiherr is in no way privileged in terms of frequency, correctness or acceptability.

The Deutscher Knigge-Rat seems to be a self-proclaimed authority on etiquette. They clearly care about the topic, so that makes them some kind of authority. Two of the 16 members have a "von" in their names, so it seems unlikely they are biased against "nobility". Focus Online interviewed Mrs von Egelstein as an expert on personal PR and etiquette. The source is about as good as it gets for this kind of information. Unfortunately it's generally hard to prove that it's more normal for dogs to bite men than the other way round, since events of the latter type receive a lot more press coverage.

When I search for "Herr zu Guttenberg" on Google News, I get 222 hits. With "Freiherr zu Guttenberg" I get only 65 hits, with "Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg" I get 61. Last night I watched Sabine Will's talk show on the plagiarism affair, and I don't think I have heard the word "Baron" even once. Hans Adler 09:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

In today's CDU press conference he was referred to as "Herr zu Guttenberg", "Herr Guttenberg", "der Verteidigungsminister" (Defence Minister) etc. The newsticker text also used the name both with and without the "zu". Not once was his (constitutionally invalid) title used or referred to. It's a nonsense to claim that it is used in public life, except possibly in CSU circles or by subservient 'retainers' who want to keep in his good books. The only time I have seen the title Baron used was in the Hamburger Morgenpost (left-of-centre politically), where the headline on a 2-page spread on 17 Feb. was "Der Freiherr ein Lügenbaron?", (The Freiherr a Baron of Lies?), a reference to Baron v. Münchhausen, over a photo-montage of his smiling face on the poster from the 1943 film starring Hans Albers as von Münchhausen. In the body of the article he is referred to initially as "Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg" (where did that hyphen come from??), and in the rest of the article as Guttenberg (e.g. "But suddenly Guttenberg is said to be a Baron of Lies"). His credibility has suffered not just (1) from the allegations of plagiarism but also (2) from the revelation that "managing the company business" (one of his qualifications for being Economics Minister) turned out to mean merely that he had been 'CEO' of a company which handled the family finances (with an annual turnover of 25,000 Euro for one year on record) and (3) from his CV reference to having been a journalist, which turns out to refer to an internship which lasted just a few weeks! In the interests of accuracy, Wikipedia should contain the facts, not the spin Guttenberg puts on them. --TraceyR (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

All of this has nothing to do with the question of his heritage, which is a different question than his work as minister of defence (in that capacity, it's entirely natural to mostly refer to him as the minister). It also does not in any way disprove the fact that he is "frequently referred to as a Baron by German and international media" (which is worth mentioning in connection with the rest of the material on his family background and title in the "family" section). Noone has claimed he must only be referred to as a Baron. Come up with some sources, or don't. I don't care about what you think he should be referred to as, I only care about sources—if you feel strongly that what the sources report is wrong, send a letter to the editor of some newspaper. You are right in one aspect, though: The controversy is entirely manufactured inside Wikipedia, mostly by you. As we have seen demonstrated, mainstream reliable sources, even those published by the German federal government, frequently refer to him as a Baron without making a fuss of it. Jolanak (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The subject of this thread is not his heritage but the article's misrepresentation of the facts. Check it out above: "Talk:Karl-Theodor_zu_Guttenberg#Advert for the US/UK readers and foreign press?", where the poster asked for this article to restrict itself to facts, i.e. for it not to read like an advert for (Herr) zu Guttenberg. You can start a new thread about his heritage if you like. --TraceyR (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No, what we are discussing here is specifically the wording of the section on his "family", i.e. on his family heritage. Not how we describe his work as minister of defence. I'm sorry to say, but the opening post reads like a letter to the editor and belongs in a forum, and is not helpful in regard to improving this article. Jolanak (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC) 

OK, his heritage includes those who, until the law was changed in 1919, were indeed Freiherren. Unfortunately for these families, the law changed all that. They are no longer Barons, Dukes, Princes etc. Germany became a republic. People can call themselves Freiherr if they like, I suppose, and many people, ignorant of the law, will continue to refer to them as such. However many references you can find to show that others refer to Guttenberg as Herr Baron, this doesn't change the legal status: 'there are no aristocratic titles in Germany'. As Wikipedia puts it in Freiherr#German_title, "the titles are now legally considered to be simply part of the family name (with the former title following the first name, e.g. Georg Freiherr von Platz), and they may or may not be used. They do, however, have prestige in some circles of society...". Another term for this is snobbery, where a snob is defined as "someone who adopts the worldview of snobbery — that some people are inherently inferior to him or her for any one of a variety of reasons, including ... ancestry." --TraceyR (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing of what you're saying here is anything else than your personal opinion on the matter of German nobility. I don't see any sources. Whether you think the use of titles is snobbery or not is, I'm afraid, of no interest to this article. Yes, there are indeed Barons, Dukes and Princes in Germany because reliable sources in thousands say so (and Wikipedia is full of articles about them), the question of nobility just became a private matter of no interest to the state in 1919, the nobility didn't cease to exist as a social phenomenon as demonstrated by reliable sources. The anti-noble viewpoint happens to be a fringe point of view in Germany, found almost exclusively on the far left (not even the social democrats are particularly upset by the use of noble titles or concerned with this matter).

In the case of KT zu Guttenberg, just have a look at: Genealogisches Handbuch des in Bayern immatrikulierten Adels, Vol. XXV, 2004, p. 422. Jolanak (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

From your link to fringe views: "Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources." Nobility has been rejected, is seen as absurd and only of historical interest. I.e. argumenting with that wikipedia guideline will not help you ;) 109.202.224.91 (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless you find some sources soon, I'm not dedicating more of my time to respond to this. Jolanak (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"In Germany, titles of nobility existed from early medieval times until they were abolished when the region became a republic in 1918. After 1918, members of the former nobility were permitted to use titles only as part of a name." that is what the "THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION AND ASSOCIATION ON NOBILITY" a organization that has the self-proclaimed aim to "promote the ideals of Nobility, Royalty and Monarchy in modern times" http://www.nobility-association.com/definitionofnobility.htm has to say on the matter. I hope that is credible enough for you. The problem is people who know that zu Guttenberg is not the King of Persia or the Grandmaster of the Church of the flying spaghetti monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster) normally do not find that note-worthy. Seriously, I find it difficult to discuss with someone how seriously thinks there are princes in Germany... 109.202.224.91 (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope, it's not, it's an amateur-looking, obscure personal website of some fringe group (i.e. a fringe source), and it does not mention Guttenberg! Find sources that prove that mainstream German sources, such as German mass media, do not routinely recognize the existence of the nobility, by the use of titles, by extensive reporting on noble families and so on. Find sources that prove that the mayor, the highest elected official, of Guttenberg, Bavaria in fact never said this: „Reichsfreiherr“, doziert der Bürgermeister, sei die korrekte Titel-Bezeichung. „Und mit ,Baron’ spricht man ihn an. Die Titel muss man hier wissen.“ Es ist diese typische Ehrfurcht, die im ganzen Ort auffällt. „Er hat seinen eigenen Status“, sagt Hain. „Er ist halt der Baron.“ Find sources that prove that the book Genealogisches Handbuch des in Bayern immatrikulierten Adels does in fact not exist. Find sources that prove it's not true that significant parts of German society, as demonstrated by numerous reliable sources, recognize titles as a social phenomenon. Find sources that prove that it's not true that the government-owned broadcaster Deutsche Welle routinely refers to Baron Guttenberg as a Baron[30][31][32][33], along with Le Figaro[34]of France, The Times and The Independent of the UK[35][36], and Die Welt of Germany[37]. Jolanak (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I never questioned that some people call him "Baron". If that is all you want to prove then congratulations you have succeeded. But you made the more ambitious claim, that their still are nobles in Germany today. That has nothing to do with Mr. zu Guttenberg in particular and as Guttenberg was only born more than 50 years after nobility was abolished in Germany it is not normally discussed with respect to him. Ignoring sources that do not mention Guttenberg is therefore not very constructive. Maybe we should end the abstract discussion and focus on particular proposals on how to change the article. If you want to make a change then you should probably start a new discussion section making your proposal and not use this complain by another person as a vehicle. If you want to have more mentions of the fact that some people call him "Baron" above what is already in the article, then you should propably focus on arguing why that is relevant, not that some people in fact call him that way. 109.202.224.91 (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There are nobles in Germany in the sense that there are people who are socially recognized as such by mainstream sources, such as the media, and by large parts of society. There are of course noone in Germany enjoying noble privileges or official recognition today (although in many cases, you see semi-official or de facto recognition from state or local authorities, as in the case of the municipality of Guttenberg, and several souvereign states and royal courts of Europe recognize the titles of German nobility married into their own families). Yes indeed, all I wanted to prove was that some "people call him Baron" and consider him noble, such as the most recent news article I read about him[38] a few minutes ago.Jolanak (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Your ref [39] doesn't refer to him as 'nobility'. --TraceyR (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"The 39-year-old aristocrat -- full name Karl Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester, Baron von und zu Guttenberg" Jolanak (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources you want? Here's a source: look no further than the German law that ended the award and use of titles:

Second Part

Basic rights and obligations of the Germans

First Chapter : The Individual

Article 109
All Germans are equal in front of the law.
In principle, men and women have the same rights and obligations.
Legal privileges or disadvantages based on birth or social standing are to be abolished.
Noble titles form part of the name only; noble titles may not be granted any more.
Titles may only be granted, if they indicate an office or occupation; academic degrees are not affected by this regulation.
The state may no more bestow orders and medals.
No German may accept titles or orders from a foreign government.

All of the 'proof' that mainstream media recognise the existence of the nobility in Germany is whistling in the wind: they cannot recognise the existence of something which ceased to exist, by law, in 1919. Those who perpetuate the prestige and forelock-tugging are taking longer than the rest to come to terms with the indisputable facts, probably because it provides them with material or immaterial advantage. Wikipedia is not the place to push myths. --TraceyR (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Jolanka is not recognizing the law as a source, I tried that before ;) 109.202.224.91 (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Then we don't need to waste our time on him then. If he thinks that the mayor of Bavarian village saying "Ja Herr Baron" proves the existence of the German nobility nothing we can do will help to cure him of his delusion. Sad! --TraceyR (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on your original research and congratulations on finding a primary source that is both irrelevant to this article, that is not a reliable source and that does in fact not at all support your claim. Wikipedia is not the place to push your own ideas or your own strange interpretations of primary sources from 1919, Wikipedia is the place to write encyclopedic articles based on secondary, reliable sources. Jolanak (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This twisting and turning, and a stubborn inability to face the facts (i.e. that the 'nobility' does not exist in Germany) remind me strangely of the behaviour of the subject of this article. Of course the families are still there but their legal status disappeared in 1919 (this was restated in 1949). This is not original research. It is a fact. Yes, the sky is blue, however many German mayors say "Look, the sky is red this morning". Face the facts, admit the error of your ways, repent and go in peace! Reality may be hard but it's better than retreating in a make-believe, fairy-tale world of dragons and dragon-slayers and non-existent barons. --TraceyR (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This discussion no longer makes sense, if it ever did. Nobility was legally abolished in Germany, but in a half-hearted way -- by converting titles into last names, some of which have different male and female forms, and which at least initially were harder to acquire by adoption and other similar means than "normal" names -- under the control of officials who were previously in charge of the titles of nobility.

More importantly, a lot of things exist without being recognised by law. Even in Austria, which abolished nobility much more thoroughly in that the former nobility had to choose civil names, it appears that the idea that some are more equal than others because of their ancestors' titles still has a lot of currency and actual influence on politics and society.

Nobility has very much the same status as witchcraft: While largely anachronistic, it continues to exist as an idea. When people think of themselves as witches, or are referred to as such by others, then this may well be encyclopedic information in some cases. So we can, and sometimes must, mention it. But we must get the weight right, and while we should not write about such topics from a debunking POV, we may not adopt an in-universe position, either.

In the case of Guttenberg the topic does deserve some weight as something that is remarked on in the media. There is even an actual debate, at least a rudimentary one, caused by Anna von Bayern's Guttenberg biography in which she apparently argued that Guttenberg is an example of a supposed superiority of nobility. At least that's what reviews in FAZ and Süddeutsche Zeitung found most remarkable about the book. I think we can mention this debate in a sentence or two. But it's important that we write generally from a real-world POV and stick mostly to the facts that are relevant in the real world, rather than imitating High Society Magazine.

A debate about whether nobility is a figment of the imagination that should not be mentioned at all or the most important aspect of Guttenberg and cannot possibly get enough weight doesn't make much sense. We need to focus on concrete proposals or just stop the discussion. I removed the worst excesses from the article a while ago, so I am reasonably happy with what we have now and am not motivated to propose a change. Hans Adler 16:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The editing person's political view is irrelevant at all. It is quite "German" that two persons calling each other "you are far-right extreme" "you are far left extreme". This may be common in Germany, but not international standard, and not qualified wikipedian's standard. That kind of argument sounds like two kids quarreling. Quite quite German.. --91.14.133.151 (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• It's interessting to see German monarchists and conservatives (still socialists by US standards) trying to push POV on en. Reading he same utter nonsense on de would be highly shamefull to any decent author.--87.145.5.198 (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to see that we finally agree on most issues relevant to this article, both on the question of nobility as a social (as opposed to legal) phenomenon and the need to describe the actual usage (and not from a debunking point of view). I think the article now adequately addresses this issue in the "family" section. I have never advocated the use of his titles everywhere else in the article.

Indeed article 109 of the Weimar Constitution is deliberately ambiguously worded. It does not say titles have ceased to be titles, it just says they from the legal point of view are to be treated as name parts ("noble titles form part of the name only", not "former noble titles"), although in practice, they have not been ordinary names: Noble families have been allowed to use male and female variants of titles, and to changes their titles according to family succession (i.e. from Prinz to Fürst or Herzog), and socially of course, they have been allowed to use styles and titles as they please. Jolanak (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Article 109 of the Weimar Constitution does not actually talk about "noble titles" (german: "Adelstitel"), but something as "the words naming nobility" not sure how translate it better (german: "Adelsbezeichnungen"). I.e. the Weimar Constitution in my reading does not recognize noble titles anymore (sentence before "nobility's privileges being abolished"), but just says what to do with words like "Freiherr" which are no longer noble titles.

But more important than that, we are still battling the occasionally/frequently battle ;) Just leaving the qualifier away all together, does not make it better, because then the sentence just read "media refers to Guttenberg as baron" as if all media would do that all the time, i.e. no qualifier in that sentence is an implicit "all" which is even worse than "frequently". I still think if that sentence should be in there "occasionally" describes it best. Also when talking about the media using "baron" to talk about Guttenberg one should probably mention that often that description is used to make fun of him (i.e "Lügenbaron" and similar). 109.202.224.91 (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

How about "Some sections of the media, usually from the conservative end of the political spectrum, refer to Guttenberg as "Freiherr"; the media also refer to him as "Baron", often ironically, humorously or even perjoratively (e.g. "Lügenbaron")." --TraceyR (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Media sometimes refer to zu Guttenberg as "the Freiherr", mainly to avoid repeating the name. Outside of commentaries, media do not use "Lügenbaron" or similar words.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Too few media are using "Freiherr", even occasionally, and "Baron" is mainly when media want to refer to zu Guttenberg in a negative way.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Such as "Der coole Baron" (Stern front page)? Actually, in the English language, media refer to Guttenberg as a Baron in a totally neutral way, and my impression is that he is frequently enough referred to as a Baron in German as well. After reading lots of news articles in English about him during the last few days, my impression is that English language media usually refer to his aristocratic background one way or the other, often by referring to him as a baron. "Occasionally" (which sounds like "rarely") is POV because it is simply not true, "often" or "frequently" is a lot closer to the truth. I have not to date seen any English language source referring to his noble background "ironically, humorously or even perjoratively". Jolanak (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Then the article should perhaps differentiate between the German and foreign press treatment. Certainly the German press (apart from the tabloid Bild Zeitung) often/frequently use the word Baron "ironically, humorously or even perjoratively". Perhaps the English media (and possibly Jolanak) are not sensitive to the nuances. To give a bit of local background, 'Gutti' jokes are common in Germany now, e.g. A technician arrives at the Bundestag. "I've come to check the copier". "I'm afraid you can't: he's in Afghanistan!". --TraceyR (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

As a German native, I am a bit surprised at this lengthy and heated discussion. There is absolutely no question about the facts here. In a legal sense, there is no such thing as nobility in modern Germany. Any terms like "Freiherr", "von" or "zu" are not titles but parts of the last name. Calling this a "fringe position" or even a "far-left extremist" point of view can only be considered a case of gross misinformation, to put it mildly.

Any talk of "princes", "barons" etc. in terms of titles in modern-day Germany has its place in the yellow press and in fairy tales, and probably in the wishful thinking of some descendants of former noblemen. It should certainly not have its place in an encyclopedia. --Anna (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I have noww cleaned up the family section of the article a bit more. Cheers, Clumpytree (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)