User talk:Education Master's Degree, History Geographer

Welcome!
Hello, Education Master&#39;s Degree, History Geographer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. Doug Weller talk 19:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Neither PragerU nor our articles as reliable sources
Please don't use them again. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 19:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019
Hello, I'm 911ChickenCop. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Propaganda have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. 911ChickenCop (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC

Dear 911ChickenCop, This seems to be an edit based on political bias. I have posted an excellent mini-lecture by a qualified Political Science and Law Professor (Valnderbilt University) and Princeton University. These are very reputable sources. That is why I stated what was in the video, in case someone with political leanings made assumptions about the post without actually watching the video. These are very important facts that need to be understood by all individuals to truly understand the content. Even as a student, I often asked WHY the South would succeed simply because of the election of a president. Why would you not allow reputable information from a University Professor? Am I to believe that simply because a University Professor agreed to do an Educational Video for Prager University it is therefore no longer reputable? That is very prejudiced based on viewpoint. Since this is factual (please watch them before forming an opinion), I think you should seriously reconsider and allow them to stand. Thank you very much.


 * Prager isn't a real university, it's Dennis Prager's website. Using language such as "For a surprising expose' on misinformation and the little-known history on Propaganda" and "as well as Wikipedia's History of the United States Republican Party. This highlights the sometimes purposeful obfuscation and demonization of the other party for the effort to rise in power and furthering of their own beliefs" is a major violation of our no original research and neutral point of view policies. Carol Swain is "of Vanderbilt University and now The James Madison Society, Princeton University. I don't know how you can possibly claim that. She was a visiting fellow there 14 years ago - how is that "now"? The link is in  no way "University-based evidence", that's blatant misrepresentation. Again, calling her "a reputable professor from Princeton" is simply dishonest. She's not from Princeton in any way and she certainly is no longer reputable. She's a politician, [[Tea Party at that. The video is trying to suggest that the Republican and Democratic parties of today are the same as those many years ago, which is incredibly ignorant. (Btw, I studied political science at Yale and we studied the changes in political parties over time). There's no way that Lincoln would have considered today's party similar to his. In any case, we require our sources to be reliably published, and PragerU is not. It's not just me that considers PragerU an unreliable source, see WP:RSN. If you still think it is you can present your case there.  Doug Weller  talk 12:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)