Talk:1973 oil crisis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Edgdahl link

User Yasis has repeatedly inserted "Kissinger's Yom Kippur oil shock - William Engdahl's interpretation of 1973 Oil crisis" to the external links section. As this link lacks ways to check the authenticity of the claims made there (ie by disclosing sources), it is suspect and in violation of wp:rs. In addition, it is highly POV and a conspiracy theory (Endahl believes that oil is created by an unproven and seemingly magical process so that we will never run out, not to mention that Kissinger engineered the Mideast crisis of the 70's in order to hide that fact). Because there has been no coherent, rational explanation (referencing wp policy as well as proof of this conspiracy theory's notability) for why this link should stay in, I will once again remove it. If it is restored without said explanation, I will keep removing it. NJGW (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Link not cited in article. Did not violate any rules. 218.186.64.147 (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yasis, please stop trying to add this nonsense to the encyclopedia and please log in when you edit. This link fails WP:EL and you have never, not even once, offered a rational for its inclusion; all you do is make a pedantic statement and revert. I'm removing the link. You may discuss its addition on the talk page first. cheers. L0b0t (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The link is another interpretation of events of 1973. I see no reason why it should be excluded. It does not violate any sort of rule on WIKI as far as I know of. Can you give me clear reasons for removing it?

Thanks. 218.186.64.147 (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Why violate rules? I don't see any violation. Show me how link violate rules. Don't anyhow delete links please. It is rude.218.186.64.147 (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for finally discussing this. the link fails at WP:EL in several respects. Most importantly, since it is the copyrighted work of someone hosted on some guy's conspiracy website, it fails Wikipedia:El#Restrictions_on_linking. Additionally it fails WP:ELYES #2 as it is neither neutral or accurate, it fails at WP:LINKSTOAVOID #2, and it fails WP:NPOV and the undue weight provision. It is not welcome in the encyclopedia, there is no consensus to add it (there is, in fact, consensus to delete it). As numerous editors have suggested to you, please discuss these things first. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It also violates wp:fringe in that as a conspiracy theory there are no reliable sources cited which show that this is a notable conspiracy. We've both repeated ourselves enough Yasis. You keep asking what you violate, and we keep telling you. Game's over. One last time "Because there has been no coherent, rational explanation (referencing wp policy as well as proof of this conspiracy theory's notability) for why this link should stay in, I will once again remove it. If it is restored without said explanation, I will keep removing it." NJGW (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yasis's suggested edits

So a very disruptive editor (who just got blocked for harassing me) will probably end up here at some point to make a conspiracy theory section in the article. I just want to put their ideas out there now to let the other editors who watch this page see what's may be coming.

The main gist of it can be found here (best I can tell, it's mostly based on a set of supposed Bilderburg meeting minutes, and the say so of an ex Saudi oil minister, claiming that Kissinger et al created the 73 crisis and purposefully destabalized the Middle East). I asked the editor to place what they want to suggest in this sandbox, but they have refused.

If anybody wants to give it a whirl, feel free to put something in the sandbox... otherwise be on the lookout for Yasis or his 218.186.xx.xx socks. NJGW (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Cost-Push Inflation

I changed this sentence:

"Because of the dependence of the industrialized world on crude oil and the predominant role of OPEC as a global supplier, these price increases were dramatically inflationary to the economies of the targeted countries, while at the same time suppressive of economic activity."

to

"Because of the dependence of the industrialized world on crude oil and the predominant role of OPEC as a global supplier, these price increases were highly disruptive to the economies of the target countries."

The claim that the crisis was "inflationary" is highly controversial. Many economists, including Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard, believe that the concept of cost-push is erroneous. "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. — Milton Friedman

If you want to include the theory of cost-push inflation in this article, please couch it an a phrase like "some economists believe..." and add a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.195.67 (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. I changed some of the language and added some sources, but the article could still use some help from impartial experts (it and other articles like it often attract editors with political agendas or emotional attachments). Please have a look at the references I came up with (they were just some of the promising looking ones from this search), and see how they could be improved upon. Articles like the 1979 oil crisis and 1980s oil glut could also use some help. And if you're really bored, there's an editor that may come back one day to push some of Edgdahl's conspiracy theories, so any insight you can give us on that may end up to helpful as well. Thanks, NJGW (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Lede revert

First, this edit[1] removes quotes from the adjacent US State Department reference link; whether this is 'official statement', I dunno and didn't say so, but it is a ref’d RS quote. Second, this edit[2] then changes words from that former quote, et.al. Finally, the former quote gets ‘ostensibly’d[3], with an edit summary indicating ‘Arab claims’ for that former American State Dept quote. Editors are supposed to work from the refs, do you see the problem? If you can bring another RS, I am sure we can work things together. Regards,CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Where to from here

To make things easier, below is the whole page[4] used in the above revert discussion. Although it may indicate my American bias, I feel it is a reliable place to see how our current lede and article may be somewhat different. I will note that our current lede sentence seems to be a rather limited description of the 1973 oil crisis.

Second Arab Oil Embargo, 1973-1974

The Second Arab Oil Embargo, which lasted from October 1973 to March 1974, posed a major threat to the U.S. economy. Moreover, the Nixon Administration’s efforts to address the effects of the embargo ultimately presented the United States with many foreign policy challenges.

During the October 1973 Arab-Israeli War, the Arab members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) announced an embargo against the United States in response to the U.S. decision to re-supply the Israeli military during the war. Arab oil producers also extended the embargo to other countries that supported Israel. The embargo both banned petroleum exports to the targeted nations and introduced cuts in oil production. Several years of negotiations between oil producing nations and oil companies had already destabilized a decades-old system of oil pricing, and thus the Arab oil embargo was particularly effective.

Implementation of the embargo, and the changing nature of oil contracts, set off an upward spiral in oil prices that had global implications. The price of oil per barrel doubled, then quadrupled, leading to increased costs for consumers world-wide and to the potential for budgetary collapse in less stable economies. Since the embargo coincided with a devaluation of the dollar, a global recession appeared imminent. U.S. allies in Europe and Japan had stockpiled oil supplies and thus had a short term cushion, but the longer term possibility of high oil prices and recession created a strong rift within the Atlantic alliance. European nations and Japan sought to disassociate themselves from the U.S. Middle East policy. The United States, which faced growing oil consumption and dwindling domestic reserves and was more reliant on imported oil than ever before, had to negotiate an end to the embargo from a weaker international position. To complicate the situation, Arab oil producers had linked an end to the embargo to successful U.S. efforts to create peace in the Middle East.

To address these developments the United States announced Project Independence to promote domestic energy independence. It also engaged in intensive diplomatic efforts among its allies, promoting a consumers’ union that would provide strategic depth and a consumers’ cartel to control oil pricing. Both of these efforts were only partially successful.

The Nixon Administration also began a parallel set of negotiations with Arab oil producers to end the embargo, and with Egypt, Syria, and Israel to arrange an Israeli pull back from the Sinai and the Golan Heights. By January 18, 1974 Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had negotiated an Israeli troop withdrawal from parts of the Sinai. The promise of a negotiated settlement between Israel and Syria was sufficient to convince Arab oil producers to lift the embargo in March 1974. By May, Israel agreed to withdraw from the Golan Heights.

Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)