Jump to content

Talk:Seven Sisters (oil companies)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do not merge

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was Do not merge into Supermajor. The discussion has lasted for nearly nine months with no concensus. -- Wassupwestcoast 13:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about companies that once dominated the oil business, The suggested articles each are related to each other because they deal with present day. This article speaks about the past, not present. Gunis del 04:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. The developement of the 'previous' sisters is of significance to the current situation of the oil majors, which gives it the right for its own page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.86.189.218 (talk • contribs) 08:07, April 4, 2007 (UTC)

All right for the merger. I would add other names, and the supposed origin of "Seven Sisters": may I? Bye bye, Nico Perrone

I vote Do Not Merge, the Seven Sisters oil companies is a well known concept/entity that deserves its own article. They helped shaped the oil industry for a large part of the 20th century. --Rajah 11:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No merger, all right! No reply instead for the origin of the name - "Seven Sisters". Are your interested, or not? Nico Perrone

Why merge this into something else? It has its own unique meaning, usage, and history. Sarysa 14:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would make sense to merge is under Supermajors as it's own section, and indicate that the Seven Sisters were a precursor to today's supermajors. Then redirect this page there. I think adding the two together would give a much more complete story about the history of the oil giants and they fit together quite well into a single article. Jawsdog 17:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jawsdog. Beagel 16:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncomfortable with merging the two articles as they stand. The history and background of the term "Supermajor" is quite different from the history of the term "Seven Sisters":

  • The supermajors arose from the mergers of smaller oil companies in the 1990's, while the Sisters were identified in the 1950's and arose from the split of Standard Oil.
  • Although some of the Seven Sisters merged to form some of the supermajors, there is no connection between Total S.A. or ConocoPhillips and the sisters.
  • Although it could be argued that the Seven Sisters led to the supermajors, I'm not certain which grouping is more important to which audience. Is it more important from a linear perspective to make the Seven Sisters the main article with the supermajors an epilogue, or is it more important from a sourcing perspective to make the Seven Sisters a background piece for the supermajors?

Although I wouldn't support merging the two articles as they stand, I could certainly see creating a "History of Oil Production" article that holds both of these articles in a broader context. It could start with the initial discoveries; discuss wildcatting; the creation of Standard Oil and the other majors; the split of Standard Oil and the description of the Seven Sisters; the 1990's merger frenzy and the creation of the supermajors; and identify the introduction of the new national players such as Gazprom. Landisdesign 05:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

conspiracy theory?

[edit]

I removed the reference to this in the Road Warrior sub-section as there is no previous mention of this supposed conspiracy theory. --Rajah 11:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The mention of the Seven Sisters Logo is mentioned in the Road Warrior reference, yet there is no indication anywhere (on this page) of what that logo is and/or consists of. Long story short, what's it look like? Lincoln F. Stern 05:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick web search turns up some Mad Max souvenir merchandise showing the logo with uncertain copyright status, like this and this – but the logo is entirely fictional, as the article now makes clear. From all indications, there was no known logo for the actual Seven Sisters oil cartel or its official incarnation as the "Consortium for Iran". —Patrug (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Seven Sisters (oil companies). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cartel?

[edit]

What specific cartel behavior did these companies engage in, apart from in their dealings with Iran c. 1951? Did they have regular private meetings? I don't doubt that they acted in parallel, because they had common interests. but "cartel" implies tight coordination. It is certainly possible, even likely, that there was such coordination, but specifics would be nice. DCDuring (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seven_Sisters_(oil_companies)&oldid=1173697765"