Talk:Regulation of cryptocurrency

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. A long and at times contentious discussion, but after reading through the comments it is clear that the arguments to move are largely based on policy such as WP:NPOV. Both sides quote WP:COMMONNAME, but it appears that this is somewhat stronger from the move side, especially when looking at the various comments that provide figures on how frequently each name in used in RS. CoconutOctopus talk 10:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

War on Crypto → Regulation of cryptocurrency – Continuation of a discussion that began at the AfD: This name is not a WP:COMMONNAME, and more importantly it is not a neutral name—meaning it's subject to WP:NPOVNAME's requirements, which state that An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past; it must be the common name in current use...Wikipedia ... avoids common names for lacking neutrality [when they are] trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later [or] colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious.
Generally, the sources containing the phrase "war on crypto" do not use title case (which this article's title is in), and use it as a turn of phrase—similar to the phrase "war on food dyes", which does not suggest that there is such a thing as the properly-named War on Food Dyes. In order for this title to stand, it would need to be demonstrated that a significant majority of English-language sources use it as the proper name of the article's subject.
Regulation of cryptocurrency satisfies WP:NDESC and doesn't 1) reify such an artificial concept as "the War on Crypto", nor 2) limit this article's scope to only regulations perceived as attacks on the technology or financial structures of cryptocurrencies. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:12, 24 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 11:09, 31 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Participants at the AfD: @Metallurgist @Iljhgtn @Yue @Helpful Raccoon @Gjb0zWxOb @Jfsamper @Agnieszka653 @Reywas92 @DefaultFree @Hyperbolick ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:16, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Please revert it back to War on crypto, I agreed with concerns about the capital “C” in “Crypto.” Then we can still discuss which title is best. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a discussion involving now eleven separate editors, neither you nor I can bypass the ongoing discussion and make changes before any consensus is formed. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support alternate move to Government regulation of cryptocurrency. Current title is as biased as it can possibly be. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

  Why do you prefer the inclusion of "government"? Is there another sort of regulation that that title would disambiguate from? Similar articles are simply titled "Regulation of ..." ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

  I was thinking that regulation could also refer to self-regulation, although given the precedent of other articles with that name, I suppose just regulation is more WP:CONSISTENT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

  Support alternate move to Government regulation of cryptocurrency. Or almost anything would be an improvement over the current highly POV title but that's the best suggestion yet. It also reflects a good clarification of the scope, without changing it. Andrewa (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Andrewa, is there a reason you prefer the appendage of “Government” to mere “Regulation”? The latter is consistent with similar articles. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:44, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

  Good question! Mere regulation could mean self-regulation. There seems to be no suggestion of this as an option, in fact it's not obvious how it could be arranged, but in any case it doesn't seem to be within the current or intended scope of the article. regulation of cryptocurrency would be a good redirect however, perhaps even with future possibilities. Andrewa (talk) 07:26, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: compare to War on coal, War on cancer, War on drugs, War on gangs, War on poverty, War on terror, War on women. Are these articles titled in a biased way? It's true that none of them are in title case, and that this article's sources generally use "war on crypto" over "War on Crypto". DefaultFree (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

  In order: an article about a phrase, an article about a properly named campaign, an article using legitimate common name reified by reliable secondary sources, what appears to be a mistitled article, an article using a legitimate common name, an article about an officially properly named campaign, and an article about a slogan.

  But none of this matters, because other articles are other articles—unless you're arguing that "war on [x]" is a neutral nomenclature and not a colloquialism where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious, which is an ambitious goalpost. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:51, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

  I'm simply suggesting that we consider WP:CONSISTENT when determining the correct title for this article. The discussion at Talk:War on cancer#Requested move 16 November 2019, in particular, seems relevant here. none of this matters, because other articles are other articles is applicable in the context of notability / AfD discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), but not when determining how to title an article for which notability has already been established. DefaultFree (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

  I see. Then see Regulation of artificial intelligence, Regulation of unmanned aerial vehicles, Regulation of therapeutic goods, Regulation of self-driving cars, Regulation of nicotine marketing, Regulation of electronic cigarettes, Regulation of genetic engineering, and Regulation of nanotechnology, all of which cover actually similar topics to this article’s (none of these are about phrases, slogans, or properly-named campaigns). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging. As I noted on the AFD, there is a distinct difference between "war on crypto" and "regulation of crypto", as with many of the other "war on X" articles. The "war on drugs" is the attempts to eradicate drug trade and use. "Regulation of drugs" is about their legal use being controlled. Similarly here, "war on crypto" seems to be attempts to suppress cryptocurrency use, whereas regulation would be tolerance of its use, but ensuring proper controls to keep consumers safe, especially given all the issues with it. If anything, this article would be best WP:CONTENTSPLIT into those two. I also think it might be better specified as "war on cryptocurrency" as "crypto" itself has multiple definitions, but there is some WP:COMMONNAME currency (heh) to "war on crypto" rather than cryptocurrency. Metallurgist (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Sources do not support the existence of such a topic as the suppression of the use of cryptocurrency. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

• Think we’re talking about two different articles. War on women is a good example. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support This article's author linked this as the main article at Cryptocurrency#Regulation so the title should match so this can be an appropriate subarticle. There's a lot of legitimate content and space to expand here, but the title and implication for the article's content is not neutral. The other "wars" linked are very old topic whose names are well established in sources as formal names for specific topics, which is not the case here, rather a phrase used occasionally in sentence case in articles without ever being defined. Reywas92^Talk 13:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose The term "War on Crypto" is the WP:COMMONNAME by the reliable, independent sources, in headlines, subheadings, and the text. For example, Politico: "The SEC's War on Crypto"^[1] Business Insider: "The US government just declared a war on crypto"^[2] Uppercase or lowercase is irrelevant, in both cases, it demonstrates notability and widespread use of the term. A plethora of other sources use War on Crypto either in passing or in depth.^{[3][4] [5] [6][7][8] [9][10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]} This shows consistent, repeated use. Therefore, this is not WP:OR and meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV for the title.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjb0zWxOb (talk • contribs)

• Capitalization is obviously relevant. The very existence of sources that contain the phrase "war on crypto" is not enough; nor is the existence of sources using it as a proper name (which the vast majority of your pulled sources do not)—WP:NPOVNAME requires that War on Crypto be used in "a significant majority of English-language sources" and must be the name [... not] simply a name commonly used. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

  A trawl through this bomb of links:
  1. Appears nowhere but the WP:HEADLINE (The SEC goes to war with crypto), where it is a description and neither a proper name (one cannot "go to War on Drugs", for instance) nor titlecased.
  2. Same as above, down to the headline not even using "war on crypto" verbatim in normal casing, let alone title case
  3. Not titlecased, refers once in a section header to the SEC war on crypto.
  4. Literally the same link as your second link.
  5. [Trump] has attacked the Biden administration’s efforts to regulate the industry as a “war on crypto” without acknowledging the massive fraud schemes that have shattered public confidence in digital currencies. That would be a quotation, using the term as a description ("a" war rather than "the" war), attributed in-text and not repeated in CNN's voice, and not title-cased by Donald Trump.
  6. The same link as your first.
  7. WP:HEADLINE; "China's Inner Mongolia Declares War on Crypto Mining". This does not substantiate "the War on Crypto", just as "Robert F. Kennedy Declares War on Food Dyes" does not substantiate "the War on Food Dyes".
  8. Scare-quoted in a WP:HEADLINE; contained (not title-cased) as a description (again "a" and not "the") in one attributed quotation in the body; never used in the source's voice.
  9. Used as a description (several prominent Democrats went to war on crypto). This is like reading "Turkish commentators attacked the environmental bill" and concluding that "Attack on the Environmental Bill" is a supported concept.
  10. Only in the WP:HEADLINE, body describes it in normal ways like campaign to regulate cryptocurrencies and policing crypto trading.
  11. Your fourth link again.
  12. David Sacks, Trump's AI and crypto czar [...] declared, "The war on crypto is over.". Not in the source's voice, not in title case.
  13. “This really is a vestige of the Biden administration’s war on crypto,” says Jake Chervinsky, chief legal officer at crypto VC firm Variant. Not title-cased, not in the source's voice.
  14. Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) vowed Monday to end the Biden Administration’s so-called war on crypto investors This is becoming simply dishonest. The source itself questions the phrase ... except it's a different phrase! It's "war on crypto investors"!
  15. Same link as the previous
  16. Another quote from a cryptocurrency industry guy without title-casing.
  17. A report quoting a Trump tweet that says "Kamala's war on crypto". No title-casing.
  18. An op-ed that says some in our party are mobilizing for a war on cryptocurrencies. Does not support a proper name of War on Crypto, directly implies that it does not yet exist.
  19. Attributed Trump quote, no title-case.
  20. Attributed Trump quote, no title-case.
  21. Attributed quote from an investor, no title-case.
  22. Attributed quote from the twin brother of #21's guy, no title-case.
  23. Attributed quote from aforementioned David Sacks (same quote that is reported in link #12), no title-case.
  24. Attributed Trump quote, no title-case.
  25. Attributed quote, no title-case, same quote as #23.
  26. Attributed quote from the same guy as in #16.

  So, to summarize: these sources almost never even use the string of words "war on crypto" in their own voices; when reliable sources use it in their own voices, they use it descriptively; it is not title-cased literally ever.

  Crucially, the way that this string of words is used does not even support a unified concept. There's the SEC's so-called war on crypto, China's war on crypto in Inner Mongolia, Biden's war on crypto, Kamala's war on crypto—not a single source integrates these would-be wars together into one concept at all, let alone one that is properly called "the War on Crypto".

  Have a look at this article's defining sentence: The War on Crypto is a series of regulatory, legal and political actions taken by various governments to regulate, oversee, or limit the development and adoption of Bitcoin, cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies. Not one of the sources you raised here supports this. Zero sources refer to such a thing as the War on Crypto which encompasses as a series various government actions to regulate, oversee, or limit the development and adoption of cryptocurrencies.

  The concept is synthetic. The name is made-up. Regulation of cryptocurrency is real, and regulation of cryptocurrency is neutral and descriptive. The War on Crypto is neither. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

  I appreciate your extensive comment, and regarding “War on crypto” versus “War on Crypto,” the former is best, and I believe should be restored after I tried to correct for that.

  “War on crypto” as a term itself is used across a wide range of reliable sources repeatedly to describe a sustained period of actions, investigations, and enforcement efforts that critics, industry figures, and journalists describe as a “War on crypto.” Your comment, though long, fails to refute this fact.

  “War on crypto” is apparently not the same topic as “Regulation of cryptocurrency,” and perhaps the best path forward is to have an article for both topics. “Regulation of cryptocurrency” neutrally covers all regulatory approaches whether they be supportive, neutral, or restrictive.

  Wikipedia routinely hosts both broader, neutral overviews (Regulation of X) and separate articles on specific controversies or hostile policy campaigns (like War on coal, War on women, etc.).

  Next, it is not just journalistic sources discussing the term, I also found academic literature that specifically uses “War on crypto” as its own topic.

  This specific subject of “war on crypto” is widely and consistently framed this way in reliable sources, both academic and journalistic. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  The article should not be moved to any title until this requested move has been closed.

  Your academic sources:
  1. within the crypto ecosystem, there is a strong sense of victimization and a perception of unfair prosecution by governments. Many in the crypto community believe that governments are inherently antagonistic toward crypto and simply want to destroy it. ... This article examines this sense of war on crypto by governments and whether there is any truth to it. Clearly not a validation of the concept and only examines the perception of a "war". Doesn't support this article's description of "the war on crypto" as a "series" of regulatory actions.
  2. I have no access, but Counterpunch is not an academic source, and in fact it's deemed unreliable per WP:COUNTERPUNCH.
  3. Uses scare quotes and attributes the designation; does not use it in its own voice.
  4. Merely contains a direct quote attributed in-text to Donald Trump. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support – I agree with Zanahary's rationale and am satisfied with their responses to objections raised thus far. Yue🌙 21:10, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose name change of article. "War on Crypto" already covers the subject matter perfectly. The sources clearly would appear to use this title as the WP:COMMONNAME, and this alternative is a newly created phrase to try and summarize what otherwise is already covered by many sources in exact language. Per WP:PRECISE, we do not invent new article titles out of thin air when the WP:BESTSOURCES already cover the topic in clear and unambiguous terminology. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  "War on crypto" yields 41 sources on Google Scholar, and "regulation of cryptocurrency" yields 2,670. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:39, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  That subject matter would appear to be a different topic and fails to accurately cover exactly this phenomenon. If anything, perhaps a different article could be created with that title, but these are not the same thing from a careful reading of the sources. Iljhgtn (talk) 08:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  Please show me the best source defining the War on Crypto as the lead sentence of this article does. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:41, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support: None of the news articles describe a "war on crypto" as a discrete concept in their own voices, and most uses of this phrase are attributed. There are nine Google Scholar results for "the war on crypto" () ("the" indicates that the phrase is used as a discrete concept), and only two of these results are plausibly WP:RS that use the phrase in the correct context (that is, not cryptography) outside of a citation or attributed quote. This is in contrast to tens of thousands of journal articles that discuss "the war on drugs" (), "the war on poverty" (), "the war on terror" (). Even "the war on coal", which we describe as a non-neutral "phrase" and not the common name for a series of actions, has over 600 results () Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• Merge to Cryptocurrency#Regulation, this article is just hype (mainly US hype). Selfstudier (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Economics, WikiProject Cryptocurrency, and WikiProject Trade have been notified of this discussion. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support rename to Regulation of cryptocurrency, or merge to cryptocurrency. The idea that a "war on cryptocurrency" is an actual thing is ridiculous. The only way we would have a "War on crypto" article is to cover the conspiracy theories that such a thing exists -- something like War on Christmas. EEng 18:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  There is not even enough sourcing to support the notability of the perception of a war on crypto, from what I have seen. This would be a good place to start, though. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  I should have clear that I wasn't implying there's material for such an article at the present time. I simply meant to clarify what the appropriate topic of a War on crypto would be, if the sourcing existed.

  Having said that, I can say for sure, without even looking, that there are people who promote the idea that there's such a war brewing, because an important tool in the huckster's toolbox is the pitch that you have a limited-time opportunity to get in on the ground floor before "they" take that opportunity away from you -- e.g. the opening words of this scammy pitch . EEng 03:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  That article you linked Zanahary helps establish notability. The term is now entering an academic context and there is a perception that there is a "war on crypto" apparently, which is why it has been mentioned numerous times. Even if you remove the Trump mentions, it still emerges. From what I can see, the view of a "war on crypto" seems to be more about suppression than mere regulation. I dont think anyone significantly is against basic safety regulations of cryptocurrency. That would merit a separate topic in its own right. Metallurgist (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  This Wikipedia article is not about a perception of persecution. It's about a "series of regulatory actions". It is also a single source. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:04, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose I'm not convinced that this violates neutrality in titling, as this article follows very much the content and style of other similar articles -- I'm nto sure either side would disagree that a war is being waged over the regulation of the generally free-range of crypto. I think that we are very likely to find people searching for this topic based on the current article title. As far as if "Crypto" should be capitalized, I would suggest it should be lower case, thus "war on crypto", but becomes "War on crypto" per artile titling standards which almost always capitalize the first letter with some very specific exceptions. I'm not strongly opposed to the suggest title as it would be a "fine" title to use, but the current title is widely used, easily understood and more concise. TiggerJay (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  How do you square Helpful Raccoon’s finding with the idea that this title is widely-used? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 11:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  Raccoon's principle statement seems to be based on the assumption that we only title things based on the "discrete concept" and thus artificially interjects "the" into the scholar search. WP:COMMONNAME has no requirement to be a "discrete concept", but rather simply a word or expression that indicates the subject of the article. The other assumption is that you can compare results for things like War on drugs which has has conceptually been around since mid-1800, but under this specific name since 1971 (per the article), versus the "war on crypto" that has been going on for a couple of years, and most significantly within the last year. That is hardly sufficient time to expect to see volumes of scholarly work published. TiggerJay (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

  The use of "the" in the search makes perfect sense; if the common name for this series of regulations is "the War on Crypto" (nobody would just refer to it without the article, as in "War on Crypto began on August 22 2011..."), then searching for that entire string would exclude the sources simply using it as a turn of phrase. The sources being pulled to support that "War on Crypto" is a common name refer to numerous different supposed "wars"—the SEC's, Biden's, Harris's, China's. No source integrates these supposed wars together into one "War on Crypto". ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

  It is perfectly plausible to say, "There is an ongoing war on crypto" just as you could say that there is a "War on drugs" or any of the many other examples that others have provided that serve similar linguistic roles as this term. No "the" necessary. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

  But the article for the War on drugs isn't derived from sources describing numerous "wars on drugs" and assembling them together to make up a unified concept. Secondary sources already support a unified concept of a war on drugs, with a definition that includes a scope, a beginning and end, and a history. Not so with "the War on Crypto". ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:09, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Zanahary - may I suggest you take a moment to read WP:BLUDGEON. No reply required, and is not desired. Cheers! TiggerJay (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

  Reply issued anyways: I have, thank you. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:07, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• Weak support of proposed title change if we can't just merge or delete it as a WP:POVFORK. If it is kept, I'm pretty sure it falls under the same community sanctions as Cryptocurrency, which should be flagged for future editors. --Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  It already passed AFD, and now the proposer is trying to change the name after losing the AFD. Metallurgist (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  Stet. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  Saying I "lost the AfD" indicates an unusually personal and battlegroundy way of understanding RMs and AfDs. Yes, I nominated this article for deletion and initiated an RM, which a plurality of respondents have supported. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:07, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Law Enforcement, WikiProject Trade, WikiProject Law, WikiProject Economics, and WikiProject Cryptocurrency have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 11:09, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Support, obv a more encyclopedic and neutral framing (PoV names are only permitted if they’re the common name, which it isn’t, certainly in WP:BESTSOURCES), "war on crypto" is spin and has practically no usage in scholarly sources. Even in journalistic sources they just attribute it. We also already have Crypto Wars. Kowal2701 (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Crypto Wars is an entirely separate concept regarding the government's war on cryptographic algorithms. It's unrelated to cryptocurrency. If anything, there's more of a case to be made for renaming Crypto Wars as that's anything but a common name and hardly referenced by any sources with that nomenclature. Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - I feel like it should be called "War on cryptocurrency". I agree with renaming and lowercasing to cryptocurrency. It should not be called "Regulation of cryptocurrency" because the intention of regulators was not to ensure proper controls but to entirely cease people attempting to use what amounts to a new technology. You can look at Operation Choke Point and Choke Point 2.0 for evidence that regulators were trying to eradicate the mainstream use of cryptocurrency, in the same way they have been trying to eradicate the use of drugs, gangs, etc. Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  This is your original assessment of the regulation of cryptocurrency. the intention of regulators was not to ensure proper controls but to entirely cease people attempting to use what amounts to a new technology is a completely unsourced assertion that has nothing to do with titling policy. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment It looks like an attempt was made by the page creator to rename the article War on crypto (lowercase "C" in crypto) from the current War on Crypto (capital "C" in crypto). If that was the page creators originally intended capitalization, and frankly I think it is an improvement, then how about we rename this discussion to reflect that and make that move now? Iljhgtn (talk) 02:22, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

  No. The capitalization is not an error, as it was discussed extensively and was only unilaterally changed by the author after their application for a new page reviewer user right was denied on the basis of this article’s title, with the denying administrator explicitly saying a non-titlecased title would be more defensible. Then the author attempted to move it. It’s not an error, and there is an ongoing RM that should be allowed to unfold so that consensus for the article’s title can form. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:42, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

  It was 100% an error on my part. I didn't formally consider how the formatting on other similar pages like War on drugs and War on terror instruct how I should name this page and the sources seemed mixed on the usage. If I did, I would have formatted it that way per WP:CONSISTENT as I learned after this talk because I'd rather do it correctly the first time around than cause issues. This is a move that no one on the talkpage disagrees with doing and an admin even chimed in with support of this change. Everyone here thinks the title should be changed from "War on Crypto" to "War on crypto," myself included. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

  No, many people here think it should be changed from “War on Crypto” to “Regulation of cryptocurrency”, not to “War on crypto”, myself included. Let the RM unfold. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:25, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

  Some, by no means anything remotely approximating consensus. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  I am responding to Everyone here thinks the title should be changed from "War on Crypto" to "War on crypto," myself included. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

  Please don’t try to hijack an RM where people have !voted for the proposed title Kowal2701 (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

  The problem seems to be that many of us also wish that the current title were retained, BUT with a slight change, that being to move to a lower case "c" in "crypto". That solves for some of the concerns, and the RM should be restarted potentially to reflect the correct use of capitalization here before any new title change is suggested or considered. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  Then vote for that title. A change in casing is indeed within the scope of an RM, and if consensus for “War on crypto” is found, then the article will be moved there. Unilaterally moving an article to a title which clearly does not have consensus while an RM is open is not an option. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:49, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support – Comparing frequencies using the News on the Web (NOW) corpus:

The tone of "War on Crypto" is not encyclopedic, it's sensationalist. A phrase like war on women is not a good comparison because that phrase is WP:NOTABLE on its own, and that article is specifically about the phrase. War on terror is a better comparison because that's the established WP:COMMONNAME for that subject.

"War on Crypto" is not a notable phrase on its own, and it's not the common name for this subject. Apologies if I mess up the formatting here as it's my first time trying to vote on something. Apfelmaische (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

The two are completely different concepts. The article looks like it would need to likely be entirely rewritten, and therefore would be an entirely different article with this name bad change to "Regulation of cryptocurrency". Normally, if there is a RM, the article content should remain the same, the only thing changing is the article title. That is why the WP:COMMONNAME argument should really mostly apply in regard to the "War on Crypto" versus "War on crypto", or some other extremely similar name or concept, but "Regulation of cryptocurrency" should be made to be either: A. A separate article altogether, or B. A significant subsection within this article as a component of an ongoing "War on crypto", but not by any means a new name which loses the significance of this term.

Lastly, the above shows a declining search use of "Regulation of cryptocurrency" and an increasing usage of "War on crypto", therefore between those two (which is a deeply false choice and should not be the article titles we are choosing between, a bad RM if I say so myself), then the more WP:COMMONNAME of these two is easily War on crypto, now and dating back to 2022! Iljhgtn (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Your first paragraph is actually a good argument to delete this article. As for the second, that's why I included "Cryptocurrency regulation"—because minor grammatical variations don't effect the substance of the phrase. In the interest of fairness, I'll edit the table to include "Crypto war" as well, but it doesn't change the result, and is possibly confounded by Crypto Wars which is an unrelated subject. Apfelmaische (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Well this already went through an AfD and the result was to keep. Also, when it was previously discussed to change the name of the article in a seemingly trivial way to "War on crypto" (lowercase "c") from "War on Crypto", even something as minor as the capitalization of the word "crypto", a response was given to let the RM resolve. Fair enough, but in that same line of thinking, a new RM would need to proceed for any new title being proposed, and a title of "Cryptocurrency regulation" is substantively different from "Regulation of cryptocurrency". Furthermore, there is already an article titled Legality of cryptocurrency by country or territory, which might be an even better target location for a new section on "Regulation of cryptocurrency" if we want to find the best home for that content, but that is wholly different from the specific subset of content included in this particular article. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh, also, ignoring the data before 2023 would be pretty egregious WP:RECENTISM. Apfelmaische (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Not really. The past three years show a pretty consistent trend in favor of the current title's usage to only be increasing, whereas the past three years consistently showcase decreasing use of "Regulation of cryptocurrency" from about a 25% decrease from 2023 to 2024, and then again about a 50% decrease from 2023 to 2025. While we certainly do not have any WP:CRYSTALBALL and should not pretend to be able to predict the future, this data does present more than a brief or passing trend of mere weeks or months in terms of the reporting on the subject. WP:RECENTISM tells us mainly that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and that we should really aim for a long-term and historical view on the encyclopedia, which the current title does as supported by the data you presented. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how you can look at the data and come to that conclusion. Journalists use minor variations on phrases interchangeably. Every year, 'regulation' and 'cryptocurrency' are paired together more often than 'crypto' and 'war.' Apfelmaische (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support - largely per proposer. Not a sufficiently common or neutral title to deviate from a basic descriptive title. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:38, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support as proposed Red Slash 17:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)