Talk:Abadan Crisis

foreign consortium
Ummmm. I don't know if anyone reads this article or not, but that last statement is completely untrue. The foreign consortium that operated the oil facilities and refineries in Iran recieved no part of the profit. They existed entirely as an operational company. Iran recieved all of the profits.

The statement; "In August, 1954, the company was placed under control of an international consortium, splitting the profits from oil between the U.S., Britain, France, and The Netherlands. Iran was to receive no profit from oil for 25 years."

I agree that it's incorrect and I'm changing it to; "In August, 1954, the company was set under the control of an international consortium. Initially, ownership shares in the Consortium proposed to be divided along the following lines: 40% to be divided equally (8% each) among the five major American companies; British Petroleum to have a 40% share; Shell to have 14%; and CFP, the French Company, to receive 6%. But American independent oil companies had been interested in beginning operations in Iran for some time and had only doing so while the Iranian/AIOC dispute continued. When it became known that independent companies were to be excluded from the consortium, these companies manifested their anger. In response to these complaints, Hoover persuaded the majors to relinquish 5% (or 1% each) of their shares in the consortium to be made available to American independent companies."

Hoover
Who is the "Hoover" that this article refers to? There is only one reference in the article to the name.

-agree there is a question about Hoover...

I googled for just a moment, but could not find any reference to a Hoover being involved as mentioned. I'm sure it doesn't mean J. Edgar, but I think this reference should be romoved or made less informative unless the author can clarify who Hoover is.

Thanks though to ?both? of you for contributing... --Gbinal 03:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to merge with Abadan Crisis timeline
Against it. Abadan Crisis timeline covers much more and is intended to parallel the 1953 coup article as well as Abadan Crisis article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Against it also, for the reasons stated above, as well as for the relative ease of inserting relevant RS'd happenings chronologically, without the immediate necessity to meld them with existing prose. A timeline, by its nature, allows all happenings, even if those might not be considered significant in related articles; it also builds a basis for improving related articles. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Add info on the legal aspects of the nationalization
The article states: "The British government, which owned the AIOC, contested the nationalization at the International Court of Justice at The Hague, but its complaint was dismissed". It would be good to add a source for this. I don't know much about law, but hopefully I'll be able to find something eventually... Also, if the International Court of Justice at The Hague dismissed the British government's complaint about the nationalization, was it legal according to international law for the British to "punish" the Iranian government for the nationalization by setting up an embargo? Did the Iranian government ever attempt to appeal to the UN against the embargo? JonathanHopeThisIsUnique (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)