Jump to content

Talk:Alice Goffman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BLP POV

[edit]

This is a new article on a living person. In my view, as currently written it lacks balance of coverage and neutral point of view. Hopefully as the article is further developed, these will be remedied. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comment, User:E.M.Gregory. For greater balance, in my view there should be more coverage of other aspects of the author's career; and on the book, in addition to the four paragraphs critiquing the book, coverage of both the book itself (main points, methods, conclusions) and range of reviews. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:DASonnenfeld Are there "other aspects" of the author's career? Please add them or describe them, becaue as far as I can see, she went to college, grad school and now teaches, all centered on this one project. She must be working on some new project, if she is, please add it to the page, or, at least, describe it rather than just asserting non-coverage of the rest of her career is POV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Based on her faculty website & CV, there have not been many other publications to date. As a relatively new Assistant Professor, this is not unusual. What I think would help, as suggested above, is somewhere (maybe separately) developing more coverage of the book itself. See for example featured book articles, such as Race Against Time: Searching for Hope in AIDS-Ravaged Africa.
Notice, however, that much of the discussion on the Race Against Time: Searching for Hope in AIDS-Ravaged Africa page is sourced to/taken directly from the book itself. Not good WP style. I am looking at reviews and articles about the book. As I have time I will add more, but the problem that I am running into it that even even reviews that praise the book very often go on to raise disturbing questions about the author's methods, and the validity of her assertions. I am increasingly persuaded that the page is not as unbalanced as you suppose it to be, but, rather, that this book is notable in large part because of the serious and persistent questions raised about Goffman's relationship with evidence and narrative.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well perhaps not the best example. Other featured articles on books are available here. Looking at several of them, they seem to follow a fairly standard format: lead, background, synopsis, publication, reception, genre... Another approach might be to see how other controversial books have been written about. One that comes to mind is The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, it's not POV to include allegations contained in "an anonymous, 57-page critique that was not peer-reviewed"? This sounds like a hit piece. 32.218.35.218 (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been, except that the University of Wisconsin issued a formal opinion on the ananymous critique, and it was covereed in multiple RS news media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am making a good, faith effort to "balance the article". But what I am discovering is that even the early reviews were extremely concerned about Goffman's methodology, unsupported assertions, and sourcing. An article is not unbalanced if it merely echoes the reliable sources in tone and proportion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the Run reviews

[edit]

And a few more...

  • Zelnick, Jennifer. 2014. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare 41(4): 175-177. Available here.

Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should On the Run have a separate page?

[edit]

It has gotten a warmer reception than any participant observation study I can remember (I am too young to remember Coming of Age in Samoa). Certainly, the book could support a page. Alternatively, User:DASonnenfeld or someone who has read it and the reviews of it should feel free to describe it more fully.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:E.M.Gregory, That thought had crossed my mind, too. I could, indeed, see On the Run being spun off at some point as a separate article. As one of Goffman's relatively few publications to date, my sense is that for now it probably make sense to keep them together. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With continued focus on the book & related controversy, perhaps it does make sense, sooner rather than later, to spin off a separate article on the book. That would help address the WP:UNDUE problem with this biography of a living person. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine much information in this article would be duplicated in a new article about Goffman's book, leaving it open to having the Goffman article merged with a book article. I would keep it as it is. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have expanded discussion of this book, including reviews suggested by User:DASonnenfeld who has tagged the page for lack of objectivity. The proplem is that not only the overwhelming majority of reviews, but an avalanche of articles and analysis from America's most distinguished periodicals (The Atlantic, The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Washington Post, The New York Times) have followed their (often skeptical) reviews with articles about the problematic nature of Goffman's methods and veracity. These assertions dominate discussion of Goffman. While she is not Wednesday Martin, let alone Stephen Glass, an article that spends more time discussing those aspects of Goffman's work that the academic and general press is covering seems to me a NPOV article. I welcome discussion of this from additional editors; to me, DASonnenfeld's tagging of the page appears to me to unbalance the article by giving readers coming to the page a biased impression of the tenor of coverage of Goffman's work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me, this adds to the argument that there should be a separate article on the book. Then, as noted above, for the book, a more balanced approach would include summary of key contents of the book, as well as its critical response, etc. Thanks again for everyone's efforts. Further perspectives are indeed most welcome. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Goffman's TED talk

[edit]

is something that should be mentioned, no? --- http://www.ted.com/speakers/alice_goffman# Benvhoff (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, unless reliable, secondary sources write about it. – czar 03:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sections

[edit]

There was something so unbalanced about having the response to her book arranged as

  • 3 On the Run
    3.1 Reception
    3.2 Controversy

with "reception being all the positive responsesm and all of the negative responses under "controversy", that I changed it to

  • On the Run
    3.1.1 Positive responses
    3.1.2 Criticism and allegations of inaccuracy

Not sure if these are the best subheads. But it cannot be right to have the "reception" describe as uniformly positive, and the very serious and often admiring reviews and articles that criticize her methodology as "controversy", even though many of the reviewers in the positive category take stands in the controversy about the book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines

[edit]

It has been suggested that Goffman is not notable as she is an assistant professor and although she has received some prestigious awards and fellowships, it is perhaps debatable whether she satisfies the criteria listed in WP:NACADEMICS. However, she clearly meets WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." She clearly meets this guideline as she and her book have been the subject of multiple articles in reliable sources such as the NYTimes and the Chronicle of Higher Education, and WP:NACADEMICS "is a guideline and not a rule, exceptions may well exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work." NPalgan (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Lubet’s Criticism of Alice Goffman

[edit]

Steven Lubet, a Law Professor at Northwestern University, argues that Alice Goffman, a Sociology Professor at the University of Wisconsin, has completely changed her account of the events follow the death of Chuck. In her book she describe participating in a manhunt for Churck’s killer. In her revised account she says that there was only “talk” and the manhunt she described did not really happen. In Lubet’s own words,

"It is as though we have now read about two entirely different events—the one described in the book, and the one in Goffman’s recantation—as indeed I think we have. But which is the truth? “ Lubet goes on to argue that this factual discrepancy is so serious it calls into question other arguments Professor Goffman makes.

"Alice Goffman's Denial of Murder Conspiracy Raises Even More Questions” by Steven Lubet published in “The New Republic,” June 3, 2014. <ref> https://newrepublic.com/article/121958/sociologist-alice-goffman-denies-murder-conspiracy-run<ref> Professor Goffman’s repsonse to Professor Lubet’s earlier criticisms linked to in the above article. <ref> http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/soc/faculty/docs/goffman/A%20Reply%20to%20Professor%20Lubet.pdf<ref>


Ishmael Dott (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Ishmael Dott[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alice_Goffman&oldid=1210573245"