Re: McMurry Review Citation
- I'll try to address both Will and Marc here.
The McDonough Atlanta book was, to the best of my knowledge,
McDonough's first. I do not believe that the plagiarism problems
persist in his other books.
I'm absolutely *not* a McDonough fan; I agree with Will that his
research is sloppy, and later works employ the "Historian John Doe
suggests that ..." as his interpretation of events, decisions, etc.
I'm not interested in seeing what others have said; if interested,
I'll read their works.
But McDonough was an early writer (80s and early 90s) of western
battles, before Cozzens came along.
Villa Hills, Ky
--- In email@example.com, "William H Keene"
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Marc Grad" <heidimarc@m...>wrote:
> > What of McDonough's other titles, like Shiloh, In Hell BeforeNight
> > Fall, or the one's he did on Franklin and Chattanooga? Do theyalso
> > suffer the same problems as the Atlanta book. And was theAtlanta
> > book written before or after these other titles?Chattanooga shows sloppy
> Don't know about pagairism, but in my opinion his book on
- I'm not sure who McMurry considers to be the plagiarizer, but it's a
pretty clear indication of problems with co-authors, even if
responsibilities are clearly delineated.
I'd think the standard response would be that they were both
--- In email@example.com, SDE80@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/28/2004 2:28:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> heidimarc@m... writes:
> > What of McDonough's other titles, like Shiloh, In Hell Before
> > Fall, or the one's he did on Franklin and Chattanooga? Do they
> > suffer the same problems as the Atlanta book. And was the
> > book written before or after these other titles?
> After. And he has a new book on the Battle of Nashville coming out
> Incidentally, he and James Pickett Jones were co-authors of War So
> I don't know who McMurry considers the plagerizer to be.
> Sam Elliott
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "R.W. \(Bob\) Taubman"
> You are quite welcome. I enjoy the exercise. Being a retired policeThe problem, of course, is that if plagiarized, it adds no new
> officer/systems analyst, I enjoy the online "sleuthing".
> I think we agree that had the proper citations and and credits been
> given, there wouldn't have been a problem with the book. I have it
> on my shelf and it shall remain there with the proper cautions. It
> is unfortunate that a book that may be historically correct is now
> of questionable value due to the plagiarism issue.
thought to what has been originally written - whether available to us
in written form or not.
McMurry was historically correct; the McDonough book added nothing
(at least insofar as the plagiarized parts go).
Villa Hills, KY
- In a message dated 5/5/2004 1:01:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dmsmith001@... writes:
> The McDonough Atlanta book was, to the best of myI owned his Shiloh book long before the Atlanta one
> knowledge, McDonough's first.
came out. The Atlanta book has a 1991 publication
date (I *think*) and Amazon indicates the Shiloh book
was published in 1983.
I think his work is very superficial. Most of us could
do as well.
I do recall, before I learned of the plagerism issue,
seeing folks refer to Castel's book as the *first*
book-length treatment of the campaign, and wondering
why the McDonough-Jones book was being ignored.