Talk:Strike Hard Campaign Against Violent Terrorism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 October 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MW InternationalPolitics.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Reverted merge

@My very best wishes: I didn’t try to delete the article, as you allege. I boldly merged this article into Ethnocide of Uyghurs#Chinese government campaign because the scope is largely duplicated. This article (otherwise in desperate need of updating) is about the Chinese government campaign since 2014 whose actions and effects are already described in the Ethnocide of Uyghurs article.

Do you still dispute the merge? If so, why? Otherwise I’ll create a merge proposal. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

No, of course you deleted the page. This way anyone can effectively delete any page by making it a redirect. As about merging, was it discussed anywhere? Did you get consensus for the merging and mass removal of content on main page on this subject? Yes, please start merging discussion as an RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

You need to understand that there is a difference between WP:DELETION and WP:MERGE. Content from here was moved to another article.

You also should understand WP:BOLD – consensus is not generally required before making an addition, removal, merge, or other edits. Consensus is required once contested.

Is there literally no reason for you contesting the merge besides you not liking it? — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

So it is contested per WP:BRD. Please start an AfD, RfC or merging disccusion, and I will comment there as time allows. My very best wishes (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes but you should still give a reason in order to engage in discussion and be constructive. Otherwise it's disruptive and smacks of WP:POINT. It's nonconstructive to withhold reasoning until someone opens WP:DR. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, simply based on Google search [1], and quickly looking at found sources, it appears this is notable subject which needs to be discussed on an AfD, rather than effectively deleted, as you did. My very best wishes (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, it's a merge and not a deletion. Do you have a reason against a merge? Please do read WP:OVERLAP. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

That's a page on different and separate (sub)subject. This page is about a specific policy/campaign by Chinese government. The another page is about Ethnocide of Uyghurs, which is a different and much wider subject. My very best wishes (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I’m confused... Your original argument was duplicated scope, your new argument is overlap... Those are different sections of WP:MERGEREASON and I dont think either is a good argument. The Strike Hard Campaigns are highly notable in their own right. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Also per WP:MERGE: "Any editor can perform a merger. No permission or discussion is needed if you think the merge is uncontroversial; just do it (but it might get reverted). Otherwise, the merge should be first proposed and discussed, as detailed below." This was obviously going to be controversial, try to follow standard merge procedure next time. . Horse Eye Jack (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Huh? Duplicated scope is the first reason of WP:OVERLAP. My reason for the merge was both duplicated scope and overlapping material, both listed in WP:OVERLAP. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. The shortcut WP:OVERLAP is only for point 2 (the point titled "Overlap"), use WP:MERGEREASON if you mean the section more broadly. You seem to have missed the part were you should have proposed and discuss the merger, please abide by established practices regarding merges in the future. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The scope are clearly duplicate and the content is clearly overlapping to me, so I did a bold merge as prescribed by your quoted passage of MERGE and by BOLD. I also did not expect it to be contested on the basis of a user misinterpreting the merge as an attempted deletion. Now that it’s contested, I'm fine with creating a formal proposal. Nothing here was done against policy or established practices and I'll certainly propose a merge first when there is reason for controversy. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for exlicitly stating that you did not believe the move to be controversial, while it calls your judgement into question it does mean that the whole thing is kosher per WP:MERGE. I see your argument on overlap, the scope issue is a non-starter though as it has to be "on exactly the same subject, with the same scope.” and while the subject is similar and so is the scope they are not the same. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)