In reply to Timmd:
No the marks were still good. The point is that in humanities you have to be highly precise with your citations as 98% of their output is what philosopher A might have meant when he criticized the comments of B on a proposal made by C (to caricaturize the field).
IMO, the ONLY relevant contribution woud be to provide a better version of the proposal made by C, or an entirely new proposal on a different topic! Everything else is something between irrelevant dross and self referential wank.
As I said elsewhere, there is good work done in the humanities, in a wide field from musicology to history and sociology (just to name the first three subjects that come to my mind where I could name concrete examples of excellent work).
However, in particular in philosophy and many of the new "postmodern" subjects the entire method descends into wordplay, with the obsession over citation styles as a highly revealing side effect.
This is also why we have the "plagiarism crisis" concerning the doctoral theses of many prominent German politicians: They do some shallow thesis just for the title, and then get caught out by plagiarism hunters for not correctly citing stuff. This would not be an issue if their theses contained some actual effing original thoughts! It is characteristic that not a single such thesis was from the natural sciences!
Also, if I ran my own papers through a plagiarism detector (which our university recommends for correcting coursework) I would certainly get caught out for autoplagiarism. I don't give a shit, though: There simply are not that many different ways of describing the stem cell system I work with concisely and correctly, so of course I will reuse almost identical sentences in the introduction of each paper. The difference is that the actual work that follows is completely new and does not consist of regurgating other people's observations.