Talk:Doris Kearns Goodwin/Archive 1

Actress daughter?
I could not corroborate the following statement: "Goodwin has one daughter, Kate, who studies at Rice University and has appeared in minor roles in several feature films." I've moved the sentence here and substituted the following (from her website): "She is the the mother of three sons, Richard, Michael and Joseph." Danny 19:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * FYI, if you do a search at www.imdb (Internet Movie Data Base) there is no listing of a "Kate Goodwin" who is a feature film actress. There IS a listing for a voiceover role for a "Kate Goodwin" in the film "Journey to the Center of the Earth" in 2003. There is another "Kate Goodwin" listed as a make-up artist. At this point, I seriously doubt the existence of this "daughter."

Removed the following text
I removed the following text by Anonymous user: 69.47.156.93. This is the kind of non-encyclopedic use of a garbage reference that does nothing but denegrate Wikipedia's credibility:
 * "She has been described by Thomas DiLorenzo as a "pseudo-intellectual who is devoted to pulling the wool over the public’s eyes by portraying even the most immoral, corrupt, and sleazy politicians as great, wise, and altruistic men."" - Ted Wilkes 14:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This isn't supposed to be a fluff piece about Doris. All of her writings turn out to be hagiographies of whomever she is writing about.  This article shouldn't be one itself.  She isn't some infallible national treasure that some in the media make her out to be. Kalmia 09:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be a "fluff piece," but passing off DiLorenzo's attack as representative of mainstream criticism of her is absurd, considering the man is speaking (as he always does) from a radical viewpoint. The accusations of plagiarism are fair play; DiLorenzo's whining because she doesn't see Lincoln exactly as he does is injecting an ideological bent to what is supposed to be an encyclopedia.  The DiLorezo thing *might* belong on the Lincoln entry here; it sure as hell doesn't belong on Goodwin's.  It goes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashslinger (talk • contribs)

Wikipedians lack of footnotes
Guys: if Goodwin's Pulitzer was not withdrawn, then it was not withdrawn. Telling the reader about unlikely events that did NOT happen is of limited value and might be prejudicial. If there is documentation about the resignation being "forced", then cite it. Did someone talk to Goodwin or write a letter of some sort? Was there some face-to-face confrontation and they meanly stared her down? Come on, what happened? It would also help if the "many corporate boards" mentioned could be enumerated to some extent. I only put a fact on that. -- 70.231.145.163 22:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

A Corrected Reprint of "The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys"
A corrected reprint of the book which sparked the plagiarism controversy has apparently been promised since 2002 but has yet to appear (as of February 2010). While there might be many market-related issues for this, it does seem to reflect poorly on the claim that Goodwin and her publisher want to correct their mistakes. I think mention of this corrected printing should be omitted altogether, since there is no way of knowing how seriously it should be taken. Jvward (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This article reads like character assasination
I don't know the woman personally and I have no dog in the fight about whether she is or isn't a plagairist. However, this article does not read well at all. It tells us very little about her work and life while concentrating mainly on the plagairism accusation and other editors' apparent dislike of her.

Goodwin is one the most frequently used talking heads on television when it comes to history and is generally well regarded. If she were the pariah she is made out to be, I doubt we'd see her on so many history channel shows and network morning shows. Someone not familiar with her body of work might get an altogether different view from this article.

The last section which I tagged as needed a citation really ought to be simply removed since it is a statement of opinion and conatins the weasel phrase "some critics." If people want it to stay then identify those critics by name and link to their published complaints of Ms. Goodwin's work. Ther Plagairism section is a bit overwrought as well. And, how many external links do we really need on the subject of that alleged plagairism? The list should be whittled down to 3 or 4 at the most. Lisapollison 22:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just so people know, the DiLorenzo commentary is more a critisism of her views about Lincoln. 'Plagarism' is just used in the title.  Someone put it under that section.  If you have additional info to add then go ahead.  --Kalmia 01:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, she may appear on "Meet the Press" and have best-sellers, but she rarely appears on course syllabus and is rarely cited by academic historians.


 * This is not just a case of intellectual snobbery - "celebrity" or "popular" historians (Laurel Thatcher-Ulrich, Howard Zinn, Eric Foner, Alan Brinkley, Niall Ferguson, David McCullough) who do not get caught up in plagiarism scandals will be cited in journals and assigned in university classes. 69.171.160.200 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC).

age
Dr. Goodwin is 70 as of January 4th. 74.69.11.229 (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Historian?
Is it appropriate to call Goodwin a 'historian'? As far as I can tell, she possesses neither graduate nor postgraduate degrees in history, has not had work published in a peer-reviewed journal of history, and does not conduct original research for her books about history.

The salient issue: is a person who writes nonfiction books about history for a mass audience absent any qualifications normally associated with professional historians to be considered a historian for the purposes of this article? For example, though Bill Bryson also fits the description in the previous sentence, he is not described as a historian on this site. LordSepulchraveGroan (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyone who writes history that is published can be called a historian. Webster's definition is "A person who studies or writes about history." She studies and writes about history... ergo she is a historian. She is a formally credentialed scholar and her Lincoln and Taft/Roosevelt books are scrupulously footnoted. That fact that she doesn't write about the socio-economic plight of weavers in 17th century London doesn't make her any less a historian than one who does. 66.67.32.161 (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. Cf. . People who write about history are historians and professional snobbery and barriers to professional entry have nothing to do with it. —  Llywelyn II   11:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Colbert Report
The running 'apologies to Doris Kearns Goodwin' (one of which was the last or next to last message broadcast by the show) certainly had an impact on the poor woman's personal life, although we'd need and an angle making it  for her article. — Llywelyn II   11:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Missing ending quote marks
The following seems to be missing an ending quotation mark, but I cannot tell with out access to the original material.

"Though my footnotes repeatedly cited Ms. McTaggart's work, I failed to provide quotation marks for phrases that I had taken verbatim.... The larger question for those of us who write history is to understand how citation mistakes can happen.

Zedshort (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

NOte on my last edit
My edit was not in ANY way a "bully pulpit" editorializing about the controversy about DKG. There was a sentence containing a pronoun without a precedent. The sentence began with the word "It" referring evidently to a book of hers, but NO PREVIOUS SENTENCE established what "it" was. Without looking up what book was being referred to, I (admittedly lazily) simply changed this to "she" and reworked the rest of the sentence accordingly. I am simply correcting bad grammar!!! This is in NO way a "bully pulpit" edit.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)--WickerGuy (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Doris Kearns Goodwin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070225063946/http://video.google.com:80/videoplay?docid=2656145181816205925 to https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2656145181816205925

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Doris Kearns Goodwin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100705205428/https://www.woodrow.org/fellowships/about_fellows/arts_letters.php to http://www.woodrow.org/fellowships/about_fellows/arts_letters.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Doris Kearns Goodwin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060306075304/http://lawac.org:80/speech/2005-2006/GOODWIN,%20Doris%202005.pdf to http://www.lawac.org/speech/2005-2006/GOODWIN,%20Doris%202005.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060203043246/http://www.cityarts.net:80/n.kearns.goodwin.html to http://www.cityarts.net/n.kearns.goodwin.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Doris Kearns Goodwin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.woodrow.org/fellowships/about_fellows/arts_letters.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081015075526/http://www.doriskearnsgoodwin.com/about.php to http://www.doriskearnsgoodwin.com/about.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060411192440/http://smithsonianassociates.org/programs/goodwin/goodwin.asp to http://smithsonianassociates.org/programs/goodwin/goodwin.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lawac.org/speech/2005-2006/GOODWIN%2C%20Doris%202005.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

"Goodwin's previous wife was his mother"
The "Personal Life" section states: ... the December 15, 1975 edition of The Crimson noted that their son Richard was nine years old at the time of their wedding and claimed that Goodwin's previous wife was his mother.[33]" I don't find any reference in the linked article to [Richard, I presume] Goodwin's previous wife or that his previous wife may have been his mother. B3wh169 (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Kid Gloves for Plagiarism
It is distressing that so little is made about the case of plagiarism in this discussion (a "flap"), and that information about the "allegations" and a "private settlement" are buried in the text. This information should be in the main introduction to the text--She is important as an historian, but if she has plagiarized in several of her famous works, her very credibility as an historian is impugned. Plagiarism is an assault on knowledge and ethics, and it is never insignificant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * Doris Kearns Goodwin clearly remains a popular historian. Her books are bestsellers, and she has many high-profile talk show appearances; however, I suspect few university courses assign her works. The plagiarism scandal has damaged her standing as an academic historian. A quick search of her name in the .edu domain and search of online course syllabus only turns up references to her plagiarism scandal. 69.171.160.200 (talk)
 * "popular" does not equal "credible", and plagiarism is a show-stopper w.r.t credibility. Mikelieman (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this comment. Bruce Tennant - Long Beach CA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bt10ant (talk • contribs) 04:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

POV Plagiarism links section
I've edited the External links sub-section "A History of Plagiarism (2002)" for several reasons. First, and most egregiously POV, the title of the sub-section itself which I have changed to the more neutral "Plagiarism Allegations". Second, the sheer number of links of this one flap in her career is excessive and redundant

From WP:EL On articles with multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views. Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view—in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.

WP:POV An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

I've removed most of the links, the LewRockwell.com "Lincoln Idolatry" one because the article didn't directly pertain to plagiarism, but rather used it as an opening to attack her positive portrayal of Lincoln. I kept three of the articles from three major news sources that certainly will give the interested reader good resources to further research the event. I kept the Time magazine, "Goodwins own account of the story" as it gives some balance to the other three. --JGardner 02:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism in Fiction vs Non Fiction Works
With regard to the claims of Goodwin's plagiarism, it isn't really material what "some" academics believe. (The unmentioned corollary being, of course, that some academics do not agree with the position stated). Certainly the passages quoted by the LA Times (and others) are very similar.

The point not discussed is that Goodwin's works are largely historical biographies (IE: non-fiction), in which the description of events must bear close resemblance to the agreed occurrence. I am not suggesting that it is 'impossible' to plagiarize works of non-fiction. However, I think it self evident that in portraying historical events, it is necessary to pay particular attention to the facts. While Goodwin's use of nearly identical language and structure in the few paragraphs quoted is disappointing, the description of the events depicted is accurate and concise. There is a significant difference between using similar language to describe actual historical events and lifting a passage directly from, for example, a work of fiction. Given the nature of the subject matter involved, had Goodwin expanded or substantially altered the passages in question, she could have been rightly criticized for straying from the accepted (and perhaps supportable) facts. I suppose the real question is, have the limits of plagiarism been so narrowly defined as to apply to a handful of paragraphs from an entire book? If a victimized author can prove that a significant percentage of his/her work has been lifted either directly or extremely closely, so be it. I do not see such proof here, only a few sentences from various sources.

The case can be made that any 'new' translation or historical work is by definition plagiaristic... particularly when previous volumes are quoted as reference material. I agree strongly with the point raised previously: it is possible (if not likely) that the similarity of minor passages listed as examples here are - if viewed as plagiarism at all - accidental. I would challenge any writer (budding or otherwise) to complete a 'new' biography of any major historical figure without using examples of other's work at least as closely as those shown here. We come to late, as de Bruyere said, to say anything that has not already been said. Posthocergopropterhoc 16:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism Charges
There should be some discussion or at least a mention that she plagiarized in a number of her works
 * Here's a source: http://hnn.us/articles/590.html

Sounds to me like she DID intend to give her primary source credit. That the omittion was simply an error, not stealing. If the agreed before hand that she could use text without quotes, and simple failed to give credit, I just don't see that as plagiarism. Plagiarism is stealing without permission, not forgetting to add the name in the bib. or feetnotes. Sorry boys. I love to beat up on the media as much as the next conservative but this doug won't hunt.

Besides. The subject is the Kennedys. Who cares!--149.152.34.134 18:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Plagiarism is stealing without permission, not forgetting to add the name in the bib. or feetnotes" - not really. It's passing someone else's work or ideas off as one's own. Since Goodwin neither indicated that she was quoting McTaggart, nor gave her credit in the notes and bibilography, the word seems to fit. 09:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)09:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)09:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)71.146.121.231 09:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Plagiarism
I find the article's current wording about plagiarism to be evasive -- i.e., "the media" charged her with plagiarism.

As a professional historian, I can tell you that many academics also regard her actions as plagiarism.

Also, an important note: Plagiarism need not be intentional; it can be accidental. Whether Goodwin meant to take someone else's words or not is thus irrelevant, and the issue becomes more clear-cut. By the very definition of the word she did indeed plagiarize. --70.154.152.141 21:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Publicity is not fact
It seems that User:Huntingtonhogwild is bent on wasting space in this article about all of the publicity that the plagiarism charges received. That is not helpful because publicity is not fact. We previously made it clear that there was
 * extensive copying
 * a disagreement
 * an out-of-court settlement
 * much later, the public disclosure and a lot of publicity and a lot damage to her reputation.

I do not think it is helpful to try to enumerate the incidences of copying on a sentence-by-sentence basis or to enumerate the many of critics and pundits who chimed in on this subject without adding any new, relevant biographical facts about the person.

So far, Huntingtonhogwild is looking like a Single-purpose account, but s/he has only been around for a few days.--SallyForth123 01:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There. Now we have all the references, but none of the he-said-she-said prose.--SallyForth123 02:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What Wikipedia should say in its brilliant prose is that some news pundit or journalist said this or that but we we know to be true.


 * Prior collaboration between Goodwin and McTaggart with Goodwin claiming that she thought the copying would be OK
 * extensive copying
 * a disagreement
 * an out-of-court settlement
 * much later, the public disclosure and a lot of publicity and a lot damage to her reputation.

That is what is true, in the order that it happened. Attempt to include other cases of plagiarism by other people is not appropriate.--75.36.172.192 01:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to be tyrannical. I have merged in some of the specific examples of copying to satisfy the apparent demands of the WP:SPA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

A More Civil Discussion of Plagiarism
The tone of the plagiarism argument needs to be more academic and less combative.

I have tried to add more civility to this discussion by adding references and definitions at the end of the plagiarism section.

Goodwin's charges need to be looked at with regard to the sixth (i.e., latest) edition of the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, published by the Modern Language Association, which has an entire section devoted to "unintentional plagiarism." The MLA is the nation's pre-eminent arbiter of proper and improper sourcing methods. "Plagiarism," says the MLA Handbook, "sometimes happens because researchers do not keep precise records of their reading, and by the time they return to their notes, they have forgotten whether their summaries and paraphrases contain quoted material that is poorly marked or unmarked."

This is not a condemnation of Goodwin. She has been a fine historian. But she admits to her mistakes, and it's fair to include these facts in this article. Jpvanderbilt (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism section
I'd like to reopen a discussion of the plagiarism section, which I see has been discussed a bit over the years without resolution. The problem remains, which is that the plagiarism section is the largest section of the article. Must it be this way? I find it, coming in cold and knowing nothing about this woman, to be an entirely unbalanced article. As a living person, we need to be especially careful to be neutral in presentation of all aspects of the subject. See the npov policy section and BLP. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is a problem. Unfortunately, it is a general characteristic of WP to focus on recent and controversial events, which is an unencyclopedic way of running an encyclopedia. WP:UNDUE states: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." 75.2.209.226 (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that this seems to be a special problem in articles about media figures. To be sure, Goodwin, Ambrose, Posner et al deserve no sympathy, but they do deserve fair treatment. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting Plagiarism
I think the section on plagiarism is still lacking. I've added a note about how others responded to Goodwin's explanation of the matter. It appears that her explanations were criticized as highly inadequate.