Thread:Pluto2/@comment-1272640-20161223000558/@comment-1272640-20161223185912

Ryoung122 wrote: Pluto2 wrote:

Ryoung122 wrote: I didn't forbid Jay Hoar's materials... I said "citation needed." Ever heard of "inline citations"? Did it occur to you that not many mainstream historians accept Jay Hoar's conclusions re Kiney, and your pushing this line of argument is Point of View.Ryoung122 (talk) 06:30, December 23, 2016 (UTC) You blocked me for OR and POV. Facts are facts, and in this case, essentially everyone involved in the field accept Hoar's conclusions and respect him. There are newspaper articles dating back to the 1950s mentioning Hoar, then in his early-20s, interviewing "veterans" from both sides. Pluto2, you have a point of view that is not accepted by the "mainstream." Because you at least made an argument for your point of view, I allowed it to stay, but properly tagged it.

If you continue to be difficult and obstinate in this area, expect further disciplinary sanctions.

You've been warned.Ryoung122 (talk) 18:21, December 23, 2016 (UTC) How is it not accepted by the "mainstream"? Do you have sources for this?

Pretty much every researcher considers Hoar's work to be reliable. It's not like he just decided to write a massive volume about the lives of the last Confederates, he wrote two volumes - one about the last Union veterans, one about the last Confederate veterans. His work is more biographical than anything else. I could provide citations proving that Hoar's work isn't "fringe" at all, if you want.