Talk:Cartel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] DeBeers NPOV problem

The first sentence of the paragraph on debeers initially read (emphasis mine):

De Beers has long controlled diamond production and prices from its stronghold in South Africa, often by violence. Recently they have been implicated in sectarian violence in several African countries, including Sierra Leone and Cote d'Ivoire.

It was recently modified to read:

De Beers has long controlled diamond production and prices from its stronghold in South Africa. Recently they have been unfairly implicated in sectarian violence in several African countries, including Sierra Leone and Cote d'Ivoire.

The latter of these is clearly a biased wording. The former may or may not be biased (depending on if it's true or not), but definitely needs sources. I've taken both out for now. The bigger question: Do we even need a whole paragraph on DeBeers' activities in the middle of this article? Isn't the DeBeers article enough?

-- Tyler 04:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes. And much of the other parts are POV as well. This article needs serious cleanup. mrholybrain 11:56, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

i don't see any POV problems, can you be more specific? i agree that the DeB and sectarian violence link needs to be sourced, and does not directly concern this article (unless the accusation against de beers is that it seeks to control supply of diamonds from these conflict regions to further its monopoly position - a stretch).

i have located the following quote from the LSE's global civil society yearbook 2001 (page 12)[1] (google cache, may not be current) which can be used as a source for the statement that de beers has faced criticism over conflict diamonds. but, as i said, whether that fact belongs in this article is doubtful.

29 February - In response to criticism from NGOs, De Beers, [...] announces that its diamonds will henceforth carry a guarantee that they have not been bought from armed groups in conflict areas

Doldrums 10:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

'De Beers announces that its diamonds will henceforth carry a guarantee'

Guaranteed by whom? DeBeers? :-) 218.111.169.45 16:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Raydar More the point of view issue, where's any actual relevance to the meaning and definition of cartel? Whether or not deBeers is a cartel has nothing to do with the whole blood diamond issue. 81.19.57.130 18:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Anne Wolfe

DeBeers is a singular company. They, alone do not establish a cartel, but form a monopoly (single seller) of sorts. Whether or not it is NPOV is irrelevant, and should be discussed in either the Monopoly article or the DeBeers article

I just want to quickly add this: Cartels in nature are a bad thing. So, to get rid of the lack of neutrality, get rid of every exempt example: DeBeers is not exactly a good example, because the companies who sell the diamonds are not the people who control them, exactly. While DeBeers does have a...not so clean history, one could call those statements Slander. The mention of a monopoly, however, does focus on the right material. If DeBeers was a cartel, People's, and many other Diamond-available stores would be considered cartels. Instead of naming DeBeers, make mention of how Diamond-available stores are forced to do business with the Diamond cartel, which we all know exists. This way, it's not biased, NPOV, or slanted from the neutral territory. 74.12.8.44 13:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Joe Caron

[edit] Introduction: editorializing by examples

The introduction currently reads:

Note that a single entity that holds a monopoly by this definition cannot be a cartel, though it may be guilty of abusing said monopoly in other ways. As such, it is inaccurate to describe (for example) Microsoft or AT&T as cartels.

By placing the bolded comments side-by-side, the author is clearly inviting the reader to draw conclusions as to what companies abuse monopolies. Although Microsoft and AT&T might well abuse monopolies, this statement would belong, if anywhere, in the articles on Microsoft, AT&T and Monopoly. The addition of the examples does not in fact add anything to the paragraph, as the point is clearly stated in the first sentence. I've removed the second sentence. Asbestos (not signed in) 13:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)