Talk:Gilchrist Document

Indonesia Low‑importance

	Indonesia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics 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.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed Merger[edit]

Please state your rationale for the proposed merger. I think this could make a decent stand-alone article if it was sourced and expanded.--WilliamThweatt 19:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are the ones listed below in the original text, and they should cover all statements except the ones on frequent use in arguments later. Unfortunately, there is no online version of the US archive document (although I have a copy in my personal files). I have no opinion on whether a stand-alone article or merge is best.

Oppose[edit]

Can't see the point in a merger. If the text were expanded, and there was more information about the controversy, including the alleged source of the document and the way it was used by Subandrio et al, it would be a 'proper' article. Also more than one article links to it, and there would be an equally strong argument for merging it into those as well. Davidelit 02:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

On the contrary, when I checked the document what links here, only Soekarno article links to this article. This article describes a specific document used to overthrow Soekarno. Furthermore this article is not strong enough to stand as an article. Thus I support the merger with the following reason: this article will make the Soekarno article stronger. — Indon (reply) — 14:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Agreed. Also, since the document was a fake, its name seems ill-chosen. The title doesn't explain the content, and propagates the continuation of a false notion.Camusgoalie 15:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]