Stephen Ambrose faked Ike interviews?!

[jlvfr]

Seriously... wtf?...

Faked interviews?!

How the hell am I gonna rewatch Band of Brothers and read his books without thiking of this?...

Anyone knows how creditable is this newspaper/reporter?...

[ZekeJones]

Seriously... wtf?...

Faked interviews?!

How the hell am I gonna rewatch Band of Brothers and read his books without thiking of this?...

Anyone knows how creditable is this newspaper/reporter?...

Pretty credible, the New Yorker is fairly good about researching articles and Ambrose isn't free of controversy with his writing regarding sources.

Stephen Ambrose - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why Stephen Ambrose's plagiarism matters. - By David Plotz - Slate Magazine

Why Stephen Ambrose's plagiarism matters. - By David Plotz - Slate Magazine

[bigross86]

[/url]

Why Stephen Ambrose's plagiarism matters. - By David Plotz - Slate Magazine

According to that article:

Sen. Joe Biden, forced out of the 1988 presidential campaign for serial plagiarism—he then plagiarized his withdrawal speech—etc., etc.

That's right. the current Vice President. Aren't you guys happy you chose him and his buddy, Obama?

[ZekeJones]

According to that article:



That's right. the current Vice President. Aren't you guys happy you chose him and his buddy, Obama?

Nope, i didn't think any of the candidates were worth a crap.

[S2]

Ambrose

I thought it sad and speculated that he became rather mercenary towards the end of his career. The proliferation of books related to the 101st Airborne and the Band of Brothers borrowed extensively from one another and suggested that he was cashing in on his popularity. That in itself isn't plagarism but felt a bit cheap.

I know he was ill and may have felt the clock ticking.

I really enjoyed UNDAUNTED COURAGE as well as BAND OF BROTHERS. It's all a bit sad.

[Bigfella]

Always sad to see something like this. When a figure as well known as this is shown to have fudged the rules it does damage to the vast majority of historians who don't.

[jlvfr]

Always sad to see something like this. When a figure as well known as this is shown to have fudged the rules it does damage to the vast majority of historians who don't.

Yes, this is the major problem right here...

[Bigfella]

Yes, this is the major problem right here...

The other sad thing is that he wrote history very well for general consumption. A lot of historians don't. The ability to step out of the somewhat rarified air of academia to create something that casual readers can enjoy & learn from is valuable (my 15 year old niece is reading BoB for school right now). I hope that a controversy like this doesn't lead people to discard some of his more accessible works - they still have value.

[Shek]

Ambrose has had a cloud over his head for awhile now. He's not the only one - SLA Marshall did basically the same thing in making up research about Men Under Fire. In his case, I don't think anyone's questioned his findings, just the path to get there.

[zraver]

The other sad thing is that he wrote history very well for general consumption. A lot of historians don't. The ability to step out of the somewhat rarified air of academia to create something that casual readers can enjoy & learn from is valuable (my 15 year old niece is reading BoB for school right now). I hope that a controversy like this doesn't lead people to discard some of his more accessible works - they still have value.

With the exception of Band of Brother or other works where the Primary sources were able to review it and give the OK, none of hos work has any value other than fiction. He is no longer a historian and nothing he wrote can be trusted. He didn't just plagiarize, he invented from whole cloth.