Talk:1990 oil price shock
|WikiProject Energy||(Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)|
Do economists actually believe that oil price was the result of a recession in the late 80's, rather than the fact that Kuwait's oil reserves were on fire and the middle east was in a state of war? I doubt it. I'm removing it for now. TastyCakes 07:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg
Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
"Then-record" of 50.50 USD per barrel during crisis????
I have not found any other reference to this price. A graphic plotting Oil Prices is shown on article Price of petroleum and the line doesn't show a "record" price in 1990 (the line was higher in the 70's) and it doesn't even get close to 50 USD in 1990. — [Unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs).]
- I took care of it. Looks like a mistake that has been here a long time, compounded by vandalism. NJGW (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I see NJGW has renamed this article from 1990 oil price increase to 1990 oil price shock. I'm not sure I agree with this... I think "shock" is a far more subjective term than "increase". How brief does the escalation have to be to defined as a "shock"? "Increase", on the other hand, is a term where there is no confusion, no judgment has to be rendered each time the term is applied. NJGW says that everywhere he sees the period referred to as a shock. My argument would be that this is because he is looking at news outlets and other sources where objectivity is not an ultimate goal, as it is in Wikipedia. I think "increase" is the more descriptive, defensible term, and while "oil shock" may be a sexier way to refer to it, it should not be used as the title of the article. Also, I'm a little annoyed that the move apparently took place without any discussion. TastyCakes (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just going by what the sources call it. BTW, I used no "news outlets" for sources, so your judgment is incorrect. NJGW (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!