The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus in this AfD, in the state it's in it just needs to be closed. W.marsh 22:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Keep. This topic won a Project Censored award. If it were censored from wikipedia, that would be too ironic. Besides, it is a very valid viewpoint - it should be merged into petro-dollar discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.j.ploughman (talk • contribs)

• Keep. This is a very valid theory and, if nothing else, ought to be merged with the 'petrodollar' section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.124.92.163 (talk • contribs) . – user's only edit.

• looks like the same editor as the one above?-csloat 18:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not, they are new, and seems to be made for this occasion. Therefore should not be counted. A human 01:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable. This seems like a vanity page to showcase someone's research (though it is so poorly written as to suggest it probably wasn't the work of the author showcased). As pointed out on its talk page, most of the google hits for this page point to advertisements for this guy's book or to blogs. On Lexis/Nexis I searched full text for all available dates for "petrodollar warfare" in major papers, then in all news transcripts, then in all wire reports, for all available dates, and did not come up with a single citation for an article mentioning that phrase. Not one. A search of EBSCOHost for academic journals found not a single use of the phrase. A google search of books mentioning the phrase returns nothing. The only result on Google scholar is a link to an essay by Clark posted to a site called "ratville times." This looks like a vanity page for a young scholar. csloat 17:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. And a comment regarding notability: the publisher's blurb on the author (William R. Clark) asserts notability as "manager of performance improvement at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine" (e.g. Amazon.com), though the actual publisher's website makes no such claim and a google search finds scant evidence of such a position that's not referenced to Clark. That sounds quite fishy to me. Note that this William R. Clark is not the UCLA Immunologist nor the Iowa State ecologist. - Rynne 18:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is both original research and a conspiracy theory. Clearly not encyclopedic.—thames 19:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a conspiracy theory, but that is irrelevant. Trying to verify if the theory is incorrect however is original research. Journalists, a concressman, a professor and university lecturs have, as can be seen in external links section, written on the matter. Petrodollar warfare gives 57,300 Google hits therefore is is notable. So by definition of Wikipedia policy it must be kept. A human 02:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I get about 24,400, all ads for the book or blog nonsense. Please see the more accurate searches I indicated above. See my note on the talk page also -- google hits are a poor measure of notability, esp. when there is nothing in scholarship or books on this topic.--csloat 06:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable fringe theory.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think a move to a new title is needed, but the theory itself is actually notable. I ran into this whole thing on a website about hybrid cars and gas prices. I then came to Wikipedia to read about petrodollars and Iraq's move to Euros in 2000. Then I ran into this article. The theory can be found in many journal articles as can be seen in the "External Links" section. So a new title is needed because this is not just W.R.Clark's invention, but a delete is not warranted. --Mihai 04:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The theory cannot be found in any journal articles, at least not in any that have undergone peer review (or, for that matter, any that are in the EBSCOHost database, which includes many magazines and non-peer-reviewed journals as well). If this theory has another, more accepted, name that is used in journal articles about it, what is it? --csloat 06:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SCloat You seem to be unaware of wikipedia guidelines. Peer-review has NOTHING to do with whether the article should be kept. The wikipedia guideline for notability even mentions conpiracy theories and having only 1-2 proponents of the idea as valid. As long as journalist and bloggers, etc. picks up the idea it is noteworthy. Go read the guidelines and change your vote. Stop mentioning peerreviewing as it is irrelevant, to reseach if the idea has any real merit is to do original research. A human 15:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No; original research occurs when you use wikipedia to showcase theories that are otherwise not notable. Quoting Ron Paul and claiming that the quote has something to do with "petrodollar warfare" is original research. That is what is happening here. I don't mind this idea being mentioned in an article about ludicrous conspiracy theories believed by only one person or something, but there is no way this "theory" deserves its own page. Peer review, as well as mention in newspapers or other print media, is a much better way to measure notability than google hits. Again, if this theory has another name that is more easily found in such sources, let's hear about it. The fact that those defending the theory can't suggest such a name indicates that it probably doesn't have one. I agree with the MLA comment below that Oil imperialism theories would be a good place to mention this if it must be mentioned.--csloat 18:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R.Paul talks about Dollar hegemony and how that leads and already has lead or been part of a rationale for warfare. Now he may not have called it Petrodollar warfare but that is the same as this Clack is saying. They both argue that oil producers switching to selling in Petroeuro will hurt USD and therefore US might force them to return to USD. Clark just 'invented' a word to go with it. That how I see it. Listening to Rons speech it become obvious they are saying the same thing. It is not a scientific theory, in fact it implies that the US government is lying about rationales for wars, by definition it is a conspiracy theory. So why all that fuss about peer-reviews? It is a fringe theory, but wikipedia says that "The following are not original research: 6. The ideas have become newsworthy: they have been repeatedly and independently reported in newspapers or news stories" and google hits and the various external links confirms that. Wikipedias guideline for fringe theories states: "Any non-mainstream theories should be referenced in at least one major mainstream publication or by another mainstream group or individual.", and if a rep. congressman from texas is not a mainstream individual, what is? Is this a discussion about the term or the content, I do not care about the term, but the theory does deserve its own article. A human 01:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It's a noteworthy theory which has come up before, but the name "Petrodollar warfare" might be neologism, and the article content does not seem encyclopedic. Perhaps the less speculative points should be merged with Petrodollar. Peter Grey 08:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Oil imperialism theories as that appears to be the War+Oil article on wikipedia MLA 16:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and update - there is quite a few references to the theory on various oil and peak oil related magazines and newspapers as well as news sites like [energybulletin.net]. It has been mentioned and discussed by [Coilin Nuan] of Feasta, [William Clark], [Peter Dale Scott] Univ. of California Berkley, [Geoffrey Heard] Scoop Australia, [Emilie Rutledge] at Gulf Research Center in Dubai, [Dr Colin Campbell] in Ireland, [[http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48751 Jerome Korsi]], [Dr. Richard Heinberg] from New College of California, [Zbigniew Brzezinski] the author of The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, [professor Michael T. Klare] of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and [Noam Chomsky] of MIT. 194.204.49.249

It has been called by various names like Petrodollar vs. Petroeuro, economic perspective of war, oil currency geopolitics, financial subtext of the oil conflict and economic warfare. Alan Oldfield 21:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see "petrodollar warfare" on a single one of those pages you linked. You are referring to a number of different ideas and theories here and none of them refer back to the William R. Clark theory this page is about (save the link to Clark himself that you included). The conflation of these various ideas constitutes a bizarre form of original research -- come on; Zbigniew Brzezinski and Michael Klare support the same theory? That's ludicrous. We already have pages on petrodollar and oil imperialism theories where Clark's nonsense can go, but to conflate the conspiracy theories with the legitimate theories of everyone who has ever mentioned the role of resources in warfare is not an encyclopedia's job.--csloat 23:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It might have been a neologism a decade ago, but is now quite common with supporters and opponents on both left and right. With 42,000 links on Google, it has long passed out of the fringe phase. It is reminiscent of neoconservative. People thought it was a post-9/11 neologism when in fact it has been common in libertarian circles for decades before being adopted in the mainstream press. Carltonh 23:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. This is a term that is spreading very quickly at the moment because of all the press its getting. Especially if Iran is attacked as predicted, Petrodollar warfare will be as common as "neoconservative." So at most, the deletionists will succeed for a few months and then the term will become common enough that all the arguments against it will be no longer debatable. You can't make it fall out of favor like the term World War IV just by avoiding a Wikipedia article. Carltonh 23:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? All the evidence suggests that it is not "quite common" among anyone except people advertising Clark's book. Compare "neoconservative" in hits when you go to google scholar or lexis/nexis (where "petrodollar warfare" has zero).--csloat 00:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with oil imperialism theories. --Dcfleck 04:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Expand and rewrite. I understand that for some reason csloat has a problem with the model. Probably a conflict with some deeply hold convictions. My apologies but this does not make it less relevant. Conversly it means it is important enough if somebody is fighting it with such fervor. What comes to the notion that the afformentioned people only some mention the theory with the same name does not mean that they are not talking of the same model. If somebody offers it a better name then lets rename it. --Alan Oldfield 11:14, 10 March 2006 (GMT+2)

The classical steps a theory goes through: Ignore. Ridicule. Fight against it. Accept it as self evident. 194.204.49.249

• LOL... Thanks, but if I need psychoanalysis I'll consult a professional. If you think Brzezinski and Klare and Chomsky and Ron Paul and William Clark (whoever the latter is) are all articulating the same theory, please point to some specific claims. Everyone who talks about "resource wars" (Klare's term) is not saying the same thing. But that's neither here nor there; my point is, we already have oil imperialism theories (poorly titled, but better than "petrodollar warfare") for this kind of stuff, and we don't need a name that makes it sound like a science fiction movie. It would be interesting to email any of these people (besides Clark) and ask them how they felt about being named as a proponent of a theory of "petrodollar warfare." As I said when I suggested deleting this page to begin with, I think this is a vanity site showcasing an otherwise unknown scholar's work.--csloat 11:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Colin Nuan: "The first country to actually make the switch was a very important oil exporter indeed: Iraq, in November 2000. Before the war in Iraq began, some observers, myself included, argued that this might well be a major reason for the US desire to invade and the strong Franco-German opposition to the invasion. Corroborating evidence included the apparent influence which loyalty (or lack thereof) to the dollar seemed to have on the US attitude towards other OPEC members. Iran had been talking of selling its own oil for euros and was subsequently included in George Bush's 'axis of evil'."

*Howard Fineman: "the disagreement had little to do with the French calls for the search for weapons of mass destruction to resume and for sanctions to remain in place until the search was complete. Instead, it was mainly about the dollar vs the euro."

*Krassimir Petrov: "At any rate, no matter what the British decide, should the Iranian Oil Bourse accelerate, the interests that matter-those of Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, and Arabs-will eagerly adopt the Euro, thus sealing the fate of the dollar. Americans cannot allow this to happen, and if necessary, will use a vast array of strategies to halt or hobble the operation's exchange:" --194.204.49.249

• Keep but rename, or something.

(1) Perhaps it is does really only reference one book, but many books have their own page on Wikipedia - since it is a collaborative article and not written BY the author, it cannot be considered a "vanity page". An argument could be made, however, for the article to specifically be renamed to refer to the book in question.

(2) Yes, "petrodollar warfare" seems to be a Wiki-neologism, and therefore essentially unsearchable - but this is an argument for renaming rather than deletion.

(3) If you consider it a conspiracy theory, then it should be linked to "conspiracy theories" at the bottom of the page. But since other conspiracy theories have entries in Wikipedia, this is not in itself a reason for deletion.

I put such a link in place, but Alan Oldfield removed it [1]. And I agree, the validity of a theory is not relevant to its being on Wikipedia, only its notability. --Dcfleck 16:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(4) Admittedly, there is no information here which isn't on other Wiki-pages too, but that may simply be because people have tried to spread the info out in fear of deletion? Nevertheless...

(5) I think it's jolly interesting. --163.1.209.246

• Maybe we should use Currency war as the term? --194.204.49.249

• Comment. Though, I don't want to meddle into this discussion too much, I wish to add that there is some academic research about the connection of Iraq's petroeuro choice in 2000 and the war in Iraq since 2003. See: R. LOONEY, “Petroeuros: A Threat to U.S. Interests in the Gulf?” in Middle East Policy, 11, (2004), 1, pp. 26-37. (Note that the conclusion of this article is that it is very unlikely that there is any significant connection). Sijo Ripa 21:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: found the article also on the internet: [2] Sijo Ripa 21:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. An important entry. It could do with a rewrite and expansion, but well researched. It may be a fringe analysis (ie. one not commonly understood), but don't see any reason why it should be considered a 'conspiracy theory'. There is no conspiracy alleged. It takes the perspective of the US as an empire, but in the last couple of years that has become the accepted terminology by both US leaders and their critics. The referenced articles are good -- they include articles pro- and con- the core theory. However, I think the M3 data reporting discontinued section should be removed, as it is not sufficiently central to the argument. --Adamfenderson 02:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It takes the perspective of the US as an empire, but in the last couple of years that has become the accepted terminology by ... US leaders..." Really? Which ones? --Dcfleck 03:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dfleck: yes I probably stretched a point there - but several US conservative opinion leaders have begun embracing the term in this time, which seems like a pretty significant intellectual turn, given that it has been such a negatively loaded concept and one vehemently denied by many: eg. "America's New Empire for Liberty", article from conservative writer and historian Paul Johnson, in which he argues that the U.S. has always been an empire—and a good one at that. See also the "Benevolent Empire secion of the American Empire wikepedia entry", the most significant name there being Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Either way it's a matter of semantics. The US is big and powerful, dominates the world economy, has military bases all around the world and uses financial and military pressures to apply political influence. I don't think anyone credible would deny this, they'd just characterise it differently, and whether you're for or against it, you can choose to call it an empire or not. --Adamfenderson 02:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per MLA --Mmx1 04:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, there is people using this term, but if it looks fringe, then it can be described as fringe theory (but with NPOV). --Thv 12:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because my integrity has been fully compromised by implicit threats of retribution both on- and off-site, and because I don't fucking care anymore. — Mar. 17, '06 [21:24] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

• Comment what the hell happened here? first it said this was going to be deleted, now it has a warning about ballot=stuffing (who is being accused of that?) and then we have this cryptic note from freakofnurture that he "doesn't fucking care" -- what's going on?-csloat 22:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.