" 

 ==article name== 
 I moved it back. 

 The term ""Energy crisis"" was the only term used in print and broadcast media while the crisis was underway.  I have never seen the ""oil embargo crisis"" term used anywhere up until your rename today. 

  01:48 5 Jul 2003 (UTC) 

 :I agree  

 ::I disagree with the move, while it was called this at the time there are many other energy crises that have occured, such as the one just recently in California, or the one a while back in eastern Russia.  There is also much information on impending energy crises.  This should either be where it was or perhaps at 1973 energy crisis or perhaps OPEC energy crisis.  01:59 5 Jul 2003 (UTC) 

 There is also an article on oil crisis.  It should be at something that distinguishes them, e.g. Energy crisis (1973) or Oil embargo (1973), since this refers to a particular event. It should be at something that distinguishes them, e.g. Energy crisis (1973) or Oil embargo (1973), since this refers to a particular event.  

 :Should there not be a general reference to Energy crisis, what is it.  Then more information on specific ones throught history and the world?  

 ::Sounds like an excellent idea, perhaps we should move the current contents of this page to a more specific title and then, for now, put a stub on general energy crises here.  04:06 5 Jul 2003 (UTC) 

 ::: sounds right, move this energy crisis to energy crisis (1973) or some such and then move text from oil crisis here and add some  

  
 The use of the term in 1973 and the following few years was ubiquitous.  I do not believe that there have been any other events where the term ""energy crisis"" was applied contemporaneously in the news literature, or retrospectively in any well respected secondary sources.  For example, for the recent electricity kerfuffle in California, the term ""California electricity crisis"" was most often used, with ""California energy crisis"" and ""California electricity problem"" also appearing; the term ""energy crisis"" alone was not used without ""California"" preceeding it. 

 As a compromise I would suggest Energy Crisis (1973) as a title if disambiguation is truly necessary; we could then have Energy Crisis (Russia) and whatever else.  However, there is no point in doing this until we actually have articles on other Energy Crisis topics (c.f. Wikipedia:Naming conventions. 

 Separately, the oil crisis article is poor as it contains errors of fact and omission, and is full of broad generalities that do not inform; the best portions of it should be merged with the energy crisis article and the rest binned. 

  04:25 5 Jul 2003 (UTC) 

 ==Move== 

 Seeing the discussion above and noting a recent comment at , I moved the page to 1973 world oil shock, which I've been wanting to do for a while. I would've chosen this title all along, but when I started editing this article, it was found at 1973 energy crisis. Please revert the move if there are any strong objections.   

 == Wikipedia as a source? == 

  - apparently Kenneth Pollack cites Wikipedia's article...I'm not sure I approve.    
 :It's pretty let's say ""interesting"" to be cited by someone as prominent as Pollack for a donated article that I wrote with a pseudoanonymous account. I'm not sure how I feel about being caught up in what appears to be a horrible error of judgment, though... Wikipedia is a good way of sharing information; using it at your own risk, Wikpedia can lead you to other areas of inquiry and sources that are safe to cite. But I would not even use a Wikipedia article as a reference for a Wikipedia article; and I would not be too happy, to say the least, if I found, say, one of my students citing Wiki in a paper... He was probably getting lazy and did not bother to find another source using Google, let alone Lexis Nexis or JSTOR. It's pretty disappointing to see this from a serious commentator someone whom I would have likely cited myself before without much reservation.    

 ==Cuts== 
 I cut a dubious paragraph about Canada, in truth the increase in the price of oil did more than anything to undermine Trudeau's position.  I also removed this rather vague and uncited passage: NEWLIN