Talk:GOPAC

No reason to quote entire memo
It suffices to summarize and link to it instead. Otherwise the article is a propaganda tool. The removal of the sole critical link discussing the memo is a mistake unless we are in the business of suppressing differing opinions. Skywriter (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What sole critical link was removed? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

recent edits by ChuckWitten
recent edits by User:ChuckWitten removed vast quantities of correctly sourced content and replaced it with poorly sourced promotional content. Theroadislong (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To be specific, statements such as GOPAC has a role in American politics as it works to insure a healthy roster of battle tested and prepared state leaders that are ready to lead their legislatures and/or run for higher office are expressions of opinion, not fact, and this violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy. This is just one example of the problematic nature of your edits. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to mention recent edits by User:SpencerJameson, of course! This morning I gave SpencerJameson a sharp warning about the promotional content, largely lifted from www.gopac.org, that they had added to the article, and some hours later Chuck Witten was created and added the same copyvio promotion back. I'm going to indef them both per WP:QUACK. Bishonen &#124; tålk 16:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC).
 * Update: Already another sock has appeared at this article,, already CU-blocked along with , which is part of the same sockfarm, run by the same presumably paid editor. I've semiprotected the article for a month. Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC).