Talk:Strike Hard Campaign Against Violent Terrorism

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 3 December 2018 by reviewer Legacypac (talk · contribs).

China: Politics Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese politics (assessed as Low-importance).

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles 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.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]