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

Re: McMurry Review Citation

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 14 , May 5 10:06 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 14 , May 5 10:09 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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 3 of 14 , May 5 10:13 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          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.