This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
The bulk of content was added to the article in 2007, here. Archives for the website from 2010 show that it did not have this content at that time. Also, there were changes to the article in May 2007 that bring it closer to the form published at the external site. This may have been copied from somewhere (that odd little "box" in the introduction of the text is suspicious), but evidently not from here. --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to clean up the grammar but I wasn't sure I correctly understood what I was reading. The Academia Bambergensis was enlarged into the University of Bamberg and then when most of the departments were closed it was renamed the College for Philosphy and Theology? The third paragraph seemed to say that some part of the school was still going, but the fourth seemed to say that a school founded in 1923 and a school founded in 1958 became the current University of Bamberg, which would invalidate a 1647 original creation date. Anyway, I did a Google search and found a page that has the same text and no Wikipedia attribution tag, so I'm tagging this article as a copyvio. Banaticus (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this up for investigation! This one seems to be a reverse copy, but it's always good to evaluate carefully when we find copying. The template above explains my rationale. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done Un-opposed for three months, looks like a no brainer. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)