Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: McMurry Review Citation

Expand Messages
  • Dave Smith
    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
    Message 1 of 14 , May 5, 2004
      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.

      Dave

      Dave Smith
      Villa Hills, Ky

      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "William H Keene"
      <wh_keene@y...> wrote:
      > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Marc Grad" <heidimarc@m...>
      wrote:
      > > What of McDonough's other titles, like Shiloh, In Hell Before
      Night
      > > Fall, or the one's he did on Franklin and Chattanooga? Do they
      also
      > > suffer the same problems as the Atlanta book. And was the
      Atlanta
      > > book written before or after these other titles?
      >
      > Don't know about pagairism, but in my opinion his book on
      Chattanooga shows sloppy
      > research.
    • Dave Smith
      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
      Message 2 of 14 , May 5, 2004
        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
        plagiarizers.

        Dave

        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.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
        Night
        > > Fall, or the one's he did on Franklin and Chattanooga? Do they
        also
        > > suffer the same problems as the Atlanta book. And was the
        Atlanta
        > > book written before or after these other titles?
        > >
        >
        > After. And he has a new book on the Battle of Nashville coming out
        in the
        > Fall.
        >
        > Incidentally, he and James Pickett Jones were co-authors of War So
        Terrible.
        > I don't know who McMurry considers the plagerizer to be.
        >
        > Sam Elliott
      • Dave Smith
        ... The problem, of course, is that if plagiarized, it adds no new thought to what has been originally written - whether available to us in written form or
        Message 3 of 14 , May 5, 2004
          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "R.W. \(Bob\) Taubman"
          <rtaubman@r...> wrote:
          > You are quite welcome. I enjoy the exercise. Being a retired police
          > 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.

          The problem, of course, is that if plagiarized, it adds no new
          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).

          Dave

          Dave Smith
          Villa Hills, KY
        • Jfepperson@aol.com
          ... I owned his Shiloh book long before the Atlanta one came out. The Atlanta book has a 1991 publication date (I *think*) and Amazon indicates the Shiloh
          Message 4 of 14 , May 5, 2004
            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 my
            > knowledge, McDonough's first.

            I owned his Shiloh book long before the Atlanta one
            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.

            JFE
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.