This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
What sole critical link was removed? Fat&Happy (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
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)Reply
@ChuckWitten: 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. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
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 | tålk 16:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC).Reply
Update: Already another sock has appeared at this article, Rebeccafire, already CU-blocked along with SherryRoss123, which is part of the same sockfarm, run by the same presumably paid editor. I've semiprotected the article for a month. Bishonen | tålk 08:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC).Reply
