In anticipation of the application for the deprivation of the Minister of culture, Vladimir Medinsky, a doctoral degree in history in the Network published the full text of the document, specifying the claim to the officer, which the applicants call “thesis” and accused the Minister of neglecting the scientific methodology, the use of inaccurate translations instead of originals, and the strange machinations of publications.
The application will be considered on October 4 in the walls of the Ural Federal University. Served it to three people, including the philologist Ivan Babitsky. Ahead of the meeting, he posted a link to the document in your account in Facebook. Judging by the address, the document is published on the servers of the project “Discerned, specializing in the analysis of plagiarism in the dissertations of politicians and officials. Medina is also accused of improperly borrowing, but this is only one of many claims.
Medina thesis for a doctoral degree in history was called “Problems of objectivity in the coverage of Russian history in the second half of the XV-XVII centuries”. It is dedicated to the notes of foreign travelers to Russia and became a continuation of a series of popular science books “Myths about Russia”.
According to the applicants, the text of Medina “is full of gross errors that are hard to imagine even in the course work of the student of historical faculty.
The first part of the document is devoted to an analysis of factual errors in the text of the work of the Minister: that, for example, writes about the Church books in Russian (not Church Slavonic), in opposition to “Christian” and “Catholic Church”, and also calls a Slavic language “illirian”, while Italian researcher Piccolomini – German.
In the second part criticizes the methodology of work in which Medina declares the absolute standard of truth and credibility of historical work “weighing in the balance the national interests of Russia”. In particular, the authors point out that throughout the text of the Medina is the actual proof uses the turn “actually”, and then presenting their point of view. Thesis “impossible” to recognize scientific research, say the authors of the statement.
Also the applicants there are a variety of claims to use of the Medina of literature: foreign sources, the study of which is devoted to the thesis a little, and in the analysis of the future doctor used the originals and the translations, in some cases incorrect, where Comedy and therefore ridiculed and recognized by the Minister of unreliable. In addition, part of a bibliography for a thesis copied from the Internet along with errors in spelling, characteristic of automatic recognition.
“We have to admit that not only the total skills of the historian, but also special skills needed to work with the notes of foreigners about Russia, Vladimir Medinsky is not in sight,” indicate the applicants.
In conclusion, the authors analyze the obligatory scientific publications, which should be presented before the thesis and the defense. It is said that traces of some publications, they could not find, and others published in professional journals. Most of the work Medinsky published in “scientific notes of RSSU, where editor-in-chief worked his scientific Advisor V. I. Zhukov, the applicants.
They suggest that the applicant, “obviously not being able to print their “scientific” article in a major historical journal because of their low quality,” took the position of scientific Advisor.
In conclusion, the authors note that Medina defended in the dissertation Council, most of whose members were not experts on the historical period relates to his thesis. A protected work on the history of the Communist party.
“In our opinion, the only plausible explanation for all these surprising facts boils down to the assumption that their successful defense of Medina is obligated solely to the patronage of academician V. I. Zhukov”, – concluded the applicants.
Medina previously saidthat he hoped the quality of their work and the “wisdom of the dissertation Council”. The Minister considered that the applicants simply didn’t like his point of view: “Any work is good in that case when it gives a different perspective on a particular issue.”