This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anarchism 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.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
So you don't object to my moving any unique content from this article to the No Treason article, even though it's already getting pretty large? My concern, aside from the unique historic importance of this specific document over the rest of No Treason, is that when an article gets too big, we should split out the larger parts, regardless of whether they are specifically noteworthy. I've done or seen it done many times on large articles, when the subsection clearly does not deserve its own section, per se. — Kaz (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to merger at all, though only the sourced stuff should be merged and there are better sources available on the topic (peer reviewed academic papers, mainly, or stuff published in journals rather than on advocacy sites). There's also nothing wrong with splitting out the content eventually (as I said, summary style), but that's almost always dependent on whether there are enough reliable, secondary sources to warrant it. czar 00:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]