|
Quite a few major historians have been accused of plagiarism. Sometimes it's a technicality (i.e. failed to properly footnote or include quote marks properly) sometimes it isn't. The accusations against Goodwin are in the properly quote mark variety.
Pretty much every historian quote from other people's material. Observing the technicalities is a big deal in the academic area. I'm a bit more interested in if the material is accurate and how well it's written, rather than does it scrupulously follow some technical guidelines. As long as the source material is knowledged (which Goodwin did), then I'm not bothered by it.
|