User talk:Marcher77

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for registering an account. However, if your sole purpose here is to push a biased position in certain articles, you will be shown the door, and quickly. If you have problems with an article, please take those concerns to the article talk page. Thank you.

Actually it's the preexisting ideological bias that I am correcting. I am a real historian. I don't just playone on the internet.


 * I should warn you about the Three-revert rule. You have currently reverted on the article in question five times. You need to restore the previous version yourself, or you will be reported for edit-warring. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow, you can't argue your position so you exert the little power you have on wiki. First, alleged is not a form of evidence. This is obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the methodology of university trained historians. A common trait I find in most amateur historians is that they read a few books and regurgitate what they've read. But they have no understanding of proper methodology. And you are proving that point nicely. Secondly, there is evidence presented that blacks were more severely punished. Not a single piece of valid evidence. It is only assumed. Provide the evidence and the position holds. Don't provide evidence and the position must be eliminated or set aside, at least for the time being until evidence is provided that substantiate the claim. Simply right?

Is alleged evidence? What is the evidence that black soldiers were punished more severely? Provide the evidence or not. The fact that you ignore my request is an indication you are completely incapable of providing evidence. That's on you. Because more blacks were convicted doesn't indicate bias. It just doesn't.


 * Frankly, you seem to be operating under a severe misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and is not. We are not a publisher of original thought. We take reliable secondary sources to put together a tertiary source. That you don't understand what an encyclopedia is further undermines your claims about your identity. Bluster all you want about methodology, but your actions here make it clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.
 * Do you have a reliable source that contradicts what Roberts or Hitchcock have to say? If not, then you are cordially invited to drop your objections. Parsecboy (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)