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