Talk:William Magee (Medal of Honor)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the William Magee (Medal of Honor) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alleged Fraud--citations needed edit
Apparently there has been a book about this but it is not cited here. The description of him holding back a Confederate charge and saving a Union camp are the not the actions described in his official Medal of Honor citation which explicitly states that it happened during a charge and not a defensive action. It is unclear if the actions are the same event, different events and if both are allegedly fraudulent or just one. The use of scare quotes in the last sentence further confuses the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moerster (talk • contribs) 18:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Allegations that the medal of honor was fraudulently obtained - citations edit
The book review at https://muse.jhu.edu/article/262520/pdf , of the book
Drummer Boy Willie McGee, Civil War Hero and Fraud. By Thomas Fox. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 2008. ISBN 978-0-7864-3289-9. Photographs. Appendixes. Notes. Bibliography. Index. Pp. 288. $35.00.
claims that the fraud in question is well known to historians and "In a brief 227 pages of text Fox tells the story of William McGee, perhaps the ultimate charlatan of, and in, American military history. As the author himself notes, a fictional account of the kinds of scams McGee pulled off would be criticized as implausible overreach on the part of the writer. Not even the most twisted creatures of a Dickens novel had the audacity to try most of what McGee actually pulled off in real life. But Fox nails down the truth."
A quote of this review article would seem dutiful as a stopgap acknowledgement of at last the existence of critical opinions; without such an acknowledgement this wikipedia entry risks being subtly deceptive: it does not claim that the official record is correct, but fails to acknowedge evidence that it is especially open to doubt. For the long run, it seems that the aspiration must be that this page should cite whatever consensus there is among historians on this topic, or if there is still disagreement, what are teh versions of history being debated. Attentive21 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)