University of Augsburg: Barišić cleared of plagiarism charges

Nicole James said:There is actually a specific term for this: self-plagiarism. It happens when someone takes their own previously published work and attempts to pass it off as an entirely new, original piece. In this case, the individual wasn't just mentioning their past research—their earlier work actually constitutes a significant portion of the material being presented as part of this doctoral dissertation, all without any mention that it was being cited from their own prior publications.

If someone sticks to the same topic they've already covered and copies maybe 50-60% of the text from their old paper, that's plagiarism. I wonder if there's an actual rulebook for this—like, does it count if it's 5% or 20%, or does it have to be 50% or 70%? I guess anything over half should probably trigger it...

And if he didn't cite himself, people shouldn't be making such a huge deal out of it. Most people make that rookie mistake thinking, "Hey, I wrote this, so I can just grab whatever parts I want whenever I feel like it." It’s a common slip-up early on. You might let it slide for a bachelor's or master's degree, but for a PhD, the standards should be way tighter. Still, by God, he did mention his own work. It would be much worse if he was stealing from someone else without credit, so why all the panic... At the end of the day, it isn't just on him; it's on the mentor too. If they had any real conversation about the project, they should have warned him about the rules...

Betty Ross6 said:If someone sticks to the same topic they've already covered and copies maybe 50-60% of the text from their old paper, that's plagiarism. I wonder if there's an actual rulebook for this—like, does it count if it's 5% or 20%, or does it have to be 50% or 70%? I guess anything over half should probably trigger it...

And if he didn't cite himself, people shouldn't be making such a huge deal out of it. Most people make that rookie mistake thinking, "Hey, I wrote this, so I can just grab whatever parts I want whenever I feel like it." It’s a common slip-up early on. You might let it slide for a bachelor's or master's degree, but for a PhD, the standards should be way tighter. Still, by God, he did mention his own work. It would be much worse if he was stealing from someone else without credit, so why all the panic... At the end of the day, it isn't just on him; it's on the mentor too. If they had any real conversation about the project, they should have warned him about the rules...

The whole second paragraph is just wrong. Besides, he isn't some novice. A doctoral dissertation is supposed to be an original piece of work, not a patchwork of stuff written by himself or anyone else. Following your logic, I could just write 500 different papers where I recycle my own text every single time and claim it's still "my" work, essentially using one single study to climb the ladder all the way to being a tenured professor. It’s pretty obvious that the mentor shares the blame, but that doesn't change what Barišić did... I mean, the relationship between a mentor and a candidate is supposed to be built on mutual trust, isn't it? The issue here isn't just about the formal rules, which is what Pavo Barišić keeps bringing up, or that jerk on the Supreme Court who copied his entire dissertation... What rules was the mentor supposed to warn him about? Is Barišić some little kid? He's a grown man with a Master's degree under his belt and several scientific papers already published... claiming he didn't know better is like killing your neighbor and then arguing you're innocent because nobody told you murder was illegal. Why not just admit the guy was cutting corners and somehow managed to get away with it... and it's not even the first time, either. He pulled the same stunt with his scientific articles.

Harold Phillips54 said:The other guy. Zovko.
I don't have any info regarding Đikić.

https://cnn.com/politics/pavo-baris...etu-jure-zovko

Honestly, if you want to see who's actually being malicious or acting like a rat, just click this link and read the whole thing:

https://cnn.com/wp-content/uploads/...ava.pdf?x81092

Exactly! They'd only be "cowards" if those accusations were actually true, but after his testimony at the University of Augsburg, it’s much more fitting to call them malicious—small-minded, jealous little losers.

dustymarlin10 said:Look, buddy, your colleague was kind enough to drop some links for you.
Enjoy digging through the "hard work" of our dear party comrade.

It’s funny how you’re always the first one jumping to defend the Criminals and their legal team.

Once you've actually read it, I'll be waiting for that apology.

I'm not sure if you're talking to me here.
But if you are, let me educate you on a couple of things:
1) She isn't some "party colleague" of mine.
2) I only defend people when they're being targeted by baseless, disproportionate witch hunts that fly in the face of common sense. In this case, there was a very specific reason for it. If a supposedly "honest" minister can just push through a predetermined agenda, then fine. But if things in her department don't improve by even a hair, come after me.

I bet you're sitting there wondering if they marked your ballot against your will, too.
See, I voted YES, so I don't have those kinds of worries or frustrations...

driftinggull13 said:The whole second paragraph is just wrong. Besides, he isn't some novice. A doctoral dissertation is supposed to be an original piece of work, not a patchwork of stuff written by himself or anyone else. Following your logic, I could just write 500 different papers where I recycle my own text every single time and claim it's still "my" work, essentially using one single study to climb the ladder all the way to being a tenured professor. It’s pretty obvious that the mentor shares the blame, but that doesn't change what Barišić did... I mean, the relationship between a mentor and a candidate is supposed to be built on mutual trust, isn't it? The issue here isn't just about the formal rules, which is what Pavo Barišić keeps bringing up, or that jerk on the Supreme Court who copied his entire dissertation... What rules was the mentor supposed to warn him about? Is Barišić some little kid? He's a grown man with a Master's degree under his belt and several scientific papers already published... claiming he didn't know better is like killing your neighbor and then arguing you're innocent because nobody told you murder was illegal. Why not just admit the guy was cutting corners and somehow managed to get away with it... and it's not even the first time, either. He pulled the same stunt with his scientific articles.

I’d love to take a look at the "scientific" body of work produced by professors in the humanities... I bet what you're describing wouldn't be such a rare occurrence...

Harold Phillips54 said:Dr. Pavo Barišić tells CNN: 'It is now crystal clear whose scientific credibility was actually at stake and what the true motives were.'

Press release from Augsburg

The official statement from the University of Augsburg reads:

"In February 2017, formal complaints were filed against Prof. Dr. Pave Barišić regarding his dissertation titled 'world and ethos. Hegelian views on the fall of the West,' which he submitted during the summer semester of 1989 at the then Faculty of Arts and University of Augsburg.

Upon receiving the final reports from both university committees tasked with investigating these allegations, the University of Augsburg has reached its final conclusion regarding the matter in question:

A) There was no violation of the University of Augsburg's general 'Principles for Handling Suspected Scientific Misconduct,' and consequently,

B) It cannot be determined whether any violations occurred under the Promotion Regulations of the former Faculty of Arts and University of Augsburg that would justify accusing Mr. Barišić of intentional fraud or warranting further disciplinary action."

I highly recommend opening this link and reading the full text—with some perspective:

The man has now filed a lawsuit, reportedly seeking $2,000 in damages.
If I were in his shoes, I'd be asking for ten times that amount and donating every cent to charity.
He’s been dragged through the mud by the media and even by people here on this forum, all based on these baseless accusations. He deserves way more than what he's asking for.

Game, set, match—Pavo Barišić takes it. 😁

driftinggull13 said:That link has absolutely nothing to do with what Barišić actually did. Augsburg CONFIRMED the plagiarism, so you really need to learn the difference between an action and the consequences of that action... Barišić isn't going to sue because he knows he'll lose hands down.

Well, if you go by the headlines in the news, he’s supposedly already filed it. I’m not saying it’s a fact, obviously, but every single news outlet reporting this is claiming the lawsuit is already in motion.

nimblelynx63 said:I'm not sure if you're talking to me here.
But if you are, let me educate you on a couple of things:
1) She isn't some "party colleague" of mine.
2) I only defend people when they're being targeted by baseless, disproportionate witch hunts that fly in the face of common sense. In this case, there was a very specific reason for it. If a supposedly "honest" minister can just push through a predetermined agenda, then fine. But if things in her department don't improve by even a hair, come after me.

I bet you're sitting there wondering if they marked your ballot against your will, too.
See, I voted YES, so I don't have those kinds of worries or frustrations...

Honestly, buddy, given how things are playing out, I’m actually feeling pretty bad about voting "yes."

Then again, even if I had voted no, it wouldn't have mattered much since everything at MZočit had already been strategically handed over to party hacks—the kind of people who made sure the "yes" vote hit 98%.

So, you claim you're defending people from baseless attacks?
The woman herself literally admitted she faked the results.
How exactly is that an "unjustified" outcry?

Maybe take your insinuations somewhere else.
Buddy.
☕

Steven Lee15 said:Exactly! They'd only be "cowards" if those accusations were actually true, but after his testimony at the University of Augsburg, it’s much more fitting to call them malicious—small-minded, jealous little losers.

They really are, just a bunch of nobodies—including a certain group of forum users on this thread who stubbornly refuse to accept a clear, unambiguous statement from the University of Augsburg. They can't seem to grasp that everything was perfectly legitimate and that he followed the university rules that were in place at the time the work was completed. And that was 27 years ago.
Whether different rules exist now is completely irrelevant to research conducted under the guidelines active when it was actually written. Twenty-seven years ago.
That’s the core issue with this whole mindset. Just like with Zovko and Dickey, there’s way too much raw emotion involved. We basically demonized this man for months without cause, made a mistake, and now we're expected to apologize.

What kind of headspace do you have to be in to keep crucifying and slandering someone out of pure spite—even after an official statement from the University of Augsburg regarding a man with more credentials than all of us on this thread combined—just because he aligns with a different political faction than his critics?

Paul Chase95 said:Well, if you go by the headlines in the news, he’s supposedly already filed it. I’m not saying it’s a fact, obviously, but every single news outlet reporting this is claiming the lawsuit is already in motion.

He did file it, and he's seeking symbolic damages—clearly just for the sake of vindication against the damage to his reputation and the public smear campaign.

By doing this, alongside his high level of education, he's showing real character.

Harold Phillips54 said:They really are, just a bunch of nobodies—including a certain group of forum users on this thread who stubbornly refuse to accept a clear, unambiguous statement from the University of Augsburg. They can't seem to grasp that everything was perfectly legitimate and that he followed the university rules that were in place at the time the work was completed. And that was 27 years ago.
Whether different rules exist now is completely irrelevant to research conducted under the guidelines active when it was actually written. Twenty-seven years ago.
That’s the core issue with this whole mindset. Just like with Zovko and Dickey, there’s way too much raw emotion involved. We basically demonized this man for months without cause, made a mistake, and now we're expected to apologize.

What kind of headspace do you have to be in to keep crucifying and slandering someone out of pure spite—even after an official statement from the University of Augsburg regarding a man with more credentials than all of us on this thread combined—just because he aligns with a different political faction than his critics?

He did file it, and he's seeking symbolic damages—clearly just for the sake of vindication against the damage to his reputation and the public smear campaign.

By doing this, alongside his high level of education, he's showing real character.

It’s like conservatives aren't allowed to practice basic reading comprehension anymore... nothing about his doctorate is considered "clean" or "moral," and the University of Augsburg made that perfectly clear. Unambiguously.
Just because the rules have changed doesn't mean there aren't legal consequences (otherwise, they would have revoked the degree), but that doesn't change the fact that the work itself was legitimate. That's what the statement says, plain and simple.

nimblelynx63 said:I’d love to take a look at the "scientific" body of work produced by professors in the humanities... I bet what you're describing wouldn't be such a rare occurrence...

👍 Man, even I have to give you credit on this one. 😁 If it were up to me, here is how I would handle it.
We should probably put every single PhD and degree held by people occupying high-level government positions under a microscope. And not just the ones currently in power, but everyone who retired after holding those same seats too...

Paul Chase95 said:Game, set, match—Pavo Barišić takes it. 😁

Honestly, some people just don't read for comprehension at all......😁

Paul Chase95 said:Well, if you go by the headlines in the news, he’s supposedly already filed it. I’m not saying it’s a fact, obviously, but every single news outlet reporting this is claiming the lawsuit is already in motion.

The thing is, he’d have to prove he didn't rip off the work—which is why there's a legal process underway—but the University of Augsburg has already made it crystal clear that he did... 😁 And there’s another massive headache for him: he went ahead and publicly outed the people who filed the complaints against him at the university, even though they were supposed to stay anonymous, which the University of Augsburg has already apologized to them for... So, honestly, he might end up having to sue himself since he’s the one who leaked everything... 😁 If this actually goes to trial, it’s going to be absolute chaos, and frankly, pretty hilarious to watch. Pavo can be whatever you want him to be, but he definitely isn't an idiot...

driftinggull13 said:The thing is, he’d have to prove he didn't rip off the work—which is why there's a legal process underway—but the University of Augsburg has already made it crystal clear that he did... 😁 And there’s another massive headache for him: he went ahead and publicly outed the people who filed the complaints against him at the university, even though they were supposed to stay anonymous, which the University of Augsburg has already apologized to them for... So, honestly, he might end up having to sue himself since he’s the one who leaked everything... 😁 If this actually goes to trial, it’s going to be absolute chaos, and frankly, pretty hilarious to watch. Pavo can be whatever you want him to be, but he definitely isn't an idiot...

I was just responding to your point about him not filing a lawsuit, but apparently, he’s already gone and done it.

dustymarlin10 said:Honestly, buddy, given how things are playing out, I’m actually feeling pretty bad about voting "yes."

Then again, even if I had voted no, it wouldn't have mattered much since everything at MZočit had already been strategically handed over to party hacks—the kind of people who made sure the "yes" vote hit 98%.

So, you claim you're defending people from baseless attacks?
The woman herself literally admitted she faked the results.
How exactly is that an "unjustified" outcry?

Maybe take your insinuations somewhere else.
Buddy.
☕

I know this is slightly off-topic, but I'm curious: if she hadn't faked the numbers, do you think the outcome would have been any different? And do you think there were others like her working to rig things for the opposing side? I'm mostly interested in whether the final result would have changed regardless.

Paul Chase95 said:I was just responding to your point about him not filing a lawsuit, but apparently, he’s already gone and done it.

I know this is slightly off-topic, but I'm curious: if she hadn't faked the numbers, do you think the outcome would have been any different? And do you think there were others like her working to rig things for the opposing side? I'm mostly interested in whether the final result would have changed regardless.

Let’s say JOHABI actually did forge those results.
What’s your take on an act like that, and what do you think of someone capable of pulling it off?

Don't give me any philosophical fluff—just tell me straight what you think about people who rig referendum results.

Paul Chase95 said:I was just responding to your point about him not filing a lawsuit, but apparently, he’s already gone and done it.

I know this is slightly off-topic, but I'm curious: if she hadn't faked the numbers, do you think the outcome would have been any different? And do you think there were others like her working to rig things for the opposing side? I'm mostly interested in whether the final result would have changed regardless.

The outcome wouldn't have changed much, except maybe we wouldn't be looking at a 98% "yes" vote.

Or maybe I'm just tripping?

Was there really not at least one coworker at every single polling station just waiting for the lights to go out so they could sneak in a little extra vote for their candidate?

Once you realize that whole situation was basically orchestrated with a wink and a nod from the people in charge, why would anyone actually buy into the official story anymore?

Even if the Mexicans were the ones who started the whole war, does it even matter at this point?

Rebecca Diaz said:Let’s say JOHABI actually did forge those results.
What’s your take on an act like that, and what do you think of someone capable of pulling it off?

Don't give me any philosophical fluff—just tell me straight what you think about people who rig referendum results.

Total scum.

Absolute bottom feeders.

Republican Party.

Rebecca Diaz said:Let’s say JOHABI actually did forge those results.
What’s your take on an act like that, and what do you think of someone capable of pulling it off?

Don't give me any philosophical fluff—just tell me straight what you think about people who rig referendum results.

Alright, first things first—I didn't even bother looking up which specific case we're talking about, but since there's a 98% figure mentioned, I'm assuming this is about the independence referendum. In that context, my opinion on the act—and the person behind it—is pretty simple: I'm actually grateful they did whatever was necessary to pull us out of that criminal regime where we were treated like second-class citizens.

And please, don't start with the "we aren't doing so well in this country" theory—look, it's true, but that's on us. We blew our own shot. Honestly, I'm not sure why this is such a big deal to you; I was just asking if someone thought the outcome would have been different, and that was it. If the results were rigged, then logically, the outcome would have changed—even if it was just by a single vote.

dustymarlin10 said:The outcome wouldn't have changed much, except maybe we wouldn't be looking at a 98% "yes" vote.

Or maybe I'm just tripping?

Was there really not at least one coworker at every single polling station just waiting for the lights to go out so they could sneak in a little extra vote for their candidate?

Once you realize that whole situation was basically orchestrated with a wink and a nod from the people in charge, why would anyone actually buy into the official story anymore?

Even if the Mexicans were the ones who started the whole war, does it even matter at this point?

Look, I just asked about all five of them, nothing more. I was simply curious if you thought the results would have fallen below 50% if they hadn't rigged it.

Paul Chase95 said:Alright, first things first—I didn't even bother looking up which specific case we're talking about, but since there's a 98% figure mentioned, I'm assuming this is about the independence referendum. In that context, my opinion on the act—and the person behind it—is pretty simple: I'm actually grateful they did whatever was necessary to pull us out of that criminal regime where we were treated like second-class citizens.

And please, don't start with the "we aren't doing so well in this country" theory—look, it's true, but that's on us. We blew our own shot. Honestly, I'm not sure why this is such a big deal to you; I was just asking if someone thought the outcome would have been different, and that was it. If the results were rigged, then logically, the outcome would have changed—even if it was just by a single vote.

I appreciate the honesty. Most people in your camp wouldn't dream of admitting what you just did.