Talk:1973 oil crisis

Former good article1973 oil crisis was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 29, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 19, 2005Good article nomineeListed
June 9, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 August 2024

Location of typo error: Section: Price controls and rationing: United States; first paragraph; last sentence. Change "... had once part of the Standard Oil..." to "... had once been part of the Standard Oil..." by adding "been" after "once". Goman1 (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Left guide (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines not mentioned

The Philippines is not mentioned in the article, yet it also felt the brunt of the OPEC-inposed oil embargo (see this article from the Philippine News Agency). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2024

This extended quote below should be deleted according to WP:MOS. The ideas can be, and already are, clearly paraphrased.

Faisal told Kissinger: "The United States used to stand up to aggression-you did that in World War Two and in 1956 during the Suez War. If the United States had done the same after 1967, we would not have witnessed the this deterioration... Before the Jewish State was established, there existed nothing to harm good relations between Arabs and Jews. There were many Jews in Arab countries. When the Jews were persecuted in Spain, Arabs protected them. When the Romans drove the Jews out, Arabs protected them. At Yalta, it was Stalin who said there had to be a Jewish state...Israel is advancing Communist objectives...Among those of the Jewish faith there are those who embrace Zionism...Most of the immigration to Israel is from the Soviet Union...They want to establish a Communist base right in the Middle East...And now, all over the world, the Jews are putting themselves into positions of authority". Johnadams11 (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 18 April 2025

Description of suggested change:

Diff:

−
ORIGINAL_TEXT
+
CHANGED_TEXT

WBOE (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


It was OPEC, not OAPEC, that imposed the embargo in 1973. The article in the first sentence erroneously reports that it was OAPEC who imposed the embargo.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Day Creature (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 May 2025

change

"By 1989, only 18% of American energy came from nuclear power plants, which was a faction of what Project Independence had envisioned in 1973"

to "By 1989, only 18% of American energy came from nuclear power plants, which was a fraction of what Project Independence had envisioned in 1973"

type fixed - faction to fraction EjLegend (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cannolis (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OPEC Typo: "lead" should be "led."

A severe drain on U.S. gold reserves lead to higher inflation and lack of confidence in the strength of the dollar, President Nixon issued Executive Order 11615 on August 15, 1971, which closed the gold window. This action made the dollar inconvertible to gold directly, except on the open market, and was soon dubbed the Nixon Shock, leading eventually to the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1976. Because oil was priced in dollars, oil producers' real income decreased when the dollar started to float free of the old link to gold. In September 1971, OPEC issued a joint communiqué stating that from then on, they would price oil in terms of a fixed amount of gold.[24] Tqiwiki (talk) 05:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Countdown to the October War Typo: "cripplingly" should be "crippling."

In a later interview, Yamani accused Kissinger of not taking his warning seriously, saying all he did was to ask him not to speak anymore of this threat.[33] Angry at Kissinger, Yamani in an interview with the Washington Post on April 19, 1973, warned that King Faisal was considering an oil embargo.[33] At the time, the general feeling in Washington was the Saudis were bluffing and nothing would come of their threat to impose an oil embargo.[34] The fact that Faisal's ineffectual half brother King Saud had imposed a cripplingly oil embargo on Britain and France during the Suez War of 1956 was not considered an important precedent. Tqiwiki (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Impact on South Vietnam Typo: Sentence revision proposed.

Before: In December 1974, the North Vietnamese PAVN (People's Army of Vietnam) launched an offensive in the Central Highlands, which far more successful than expected as the ARVN, which was suffering from low morale, put up a feeble resistance.


After: In December 1974, the North Vietnamese PAVN (People's Army of Vietnam) launched an offensive in the Central Highlands (remove comma) that was far more successful than expected as due to the ARVN, which was suffering from low morale, putting up a feeble resistance. Tqiwiki (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Good change, but I changed it one step more into this: In December 1974, the North Vietnamese PAVN (People's Army of Vietnam) launched an offensive in the Central Highlands that was far more successful than expected, due to the ARVN's low morale and weak resistance.

Edit request 25 July 2025

Description of suggested change: The current sentence contains a logical inconsistency. It states that "The embargo itself did not cause much economic difficulty" but then attributes the 400% price increase—caused by the embargo—as damaging to the American economy. This separation between the embargo and its direct economic consequences is misleading. The sentence should clarify that while the U.S. could still obtain oil from non-embargoed nations, the embargo-triggered price spike caused significant economic harm.

Diff:

−
The embargo itself did not cause much economic difficulty in the United States as the Americans simply imported more oil from nations that were not part of the embargo such as Iran, but the 400% increase in the price of oil caused by the embargo did damage the American economy.
+
Although the embargo did not severely disrupt U.S. oil supplies—since Americans imported more oil from non-embargoed nations such as Iran—the resulting 400% increase in oil prices caused by the embargo did damage the American economy.

FaZ72 (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Good point, and good new text, thanks! Lova Falk (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 26 August 2025

Description of suggested change: Under the section "Effects" there is a phrase "support of show" with reference to inclusion of Portugal in the list of embargoed nations. The phrase is backwards and should read "show of support." Thank you!

Diff:

−
ORIGINAL_TEXT
+
CHANGED_TEXT

2001:A61:34BE:B601:501C:202:1462:A9F1 (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done LizardJr8 (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 23 September 2025

Description of suggested change: please change cripplingly to crippling

Diff:

−
The fact that Faisal's ineffectual half brother King Saud had imposed a cripplingly oil embargo on Britain and France during the Suez War of 1956 was not considered an important precedent.
+
The fact that Faisal's ineffectual half brother King Saud had imposed a crippling oil embargo on Britain and France during the Suez War of 1956 was not considered an important precedent.

2600:6C44:F7F:6F32:47F9:941A:A250:7EFC (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Nubzor [T][C] 02:50, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Space solar power studies as US reaction

Bear with me for a second. From my own research on the topic of Space-based solar power, it seems that the initial NASA/DoE studies by Peter Glaser and co. were funded in part due to the oil crisis. Might be worth a mention? Hal Nordmann (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hal Nordmann! Did you publish your findings in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? Also, it seems that sounds rather unsure. Furthermore, adding your own research is clearly a case of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. But, on the positive side, you can make a COI edit request, like those that are listed here: Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests. Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By "research", I mainly meant "looked around the internet a bit" - nothing as serious as you might assume (should've been clerer in my wording). Mainly wanted to note this down in case others wanted to look into this matter. Maybe I'll find a reliable source for it myself Hal Nordmann (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I found stuff like this blogpost/article: https://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2016/12/energy-from-space-department-of.html, or this testimony: https://nss.org/testimony-of-ralph-nansen-before-house-science-committee-hearings-on-solar-power-satellites/ - but neither seems like a reliable source. This also mentions it in the intro: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19740017508/downloads/19740017508.pdf But overall, I'm not sure what would be the proper source for a proper causal link between the oil crisis and SPS studies Hal Nordmann (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have answered your own question. 😊 Lova Falk (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure which one of the three sources to use - the PDF, maybe? Also, what to do to add it to the article? Hal Nordmann (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Nasa of course! However, I admit that I didn't read this long pdf, so you'll need to make a judgement call yourself if you can find something there that is strong enough to add to the article. Or, cite the exact text that you would use to confirm your proposed edit on the talk page and then we'll (and hopefully, more editors) decide if the source does indeed confirm it. Lova Falk (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On second look, it seems like the NASA PDF talks about solar energy in general, not SPS in particular - and so using it for SPS would be a stretch. That's what I get for not reading beyond the intro...
Though the NSS testimony seems promising. Specifically this:
When the OPEC oil embargo in 1973-74 triggered an energy crisis in the United States an effort to develop alternative energy sources, including solar power satellites, became a national priority. In the late 1970’s a broad-based Systems Definition Study was conducted under the joint auspices of DOE/NASA. Hal Nordmann (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can rephrase the sentence to avoid copyvio, (be careful not to specify a causal relationship because it is only implied) and put it somewhere in Solar energy? Lova Falk (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The oil crisis is already mentioned in the "Solar power" article. I was specifically looking into including it in this article. But as you can see, the relationship between the oil crisis and SBSP is easy to infer, but hard to prove. (Would add it to the SBSP article as well if I found something.) Hal Nordmann (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is often a problem! Actually, I think authors many times deliberately suggest a causality but are cautious not to state it, to avoid responsibility. Lova Falk (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1973_oil_crisis