Talk:Cartel

message: The present description focus on formalise agreementsd on price or limiations on supply to drive up prices, but fail to recognice the aim to control market processes by creating a lock-in to members of a group. 
Such constructi is Digital Cash that operated without gatekeepers - even through they of course need infrastructure.
Mobile Phone cartels that effectively create lock-ins with either teleoperators or devices manufacturers.
Examples of what is prevented is P2P and more loosely coupled commmunication - in effect the mobile internet operarates in direct contradiction to the open internet.
We see similar problems everywhere where "stnadards" are used to establish power bases for members by preventing competition that innovate the market structures.
As Lessing pointed out - CODE IS LAW, even through legislation is one of the biggest barriers to innovation, technical standards has turned into an even bigger problem. If standards dictate market structures, it creates market distortions.
The generic alternative is something like OPEN SEMANTIC STANDARD, i.e. higherlevel semantic characterisation of an areas that all possible solutions can be mapped and compared towards - modeldriven, at run-time and dynamic.
Security is the toughest area as it is probably the biggest source of problems in all other IT fields. But simply to create a Payment Standard that can cover both Digital Cash and EMV-payment cards is a way to start.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.48.58.238 (talk) 07:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Need to extend Cartels to include Standard Cartels 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Introduction: editorializing by examples 

message: Re: "== Origin ==
The name is derived from Edmund Cartel and Georges Cartel. They were successful businessmen in the grain industry in Rennes, before moving to Paris. There they encouraged firms to work together to raise prices. They then left France and went to New York and Chicago, fixing the prices of pork and railway materials. The concept was then legislated against. (Ref:  = http://ehg.org.uk/edric1.html"
Recommendation: Don't believe this lousy website again! The Archives of Rennes – I contacted – couldn’t verify these persons named ‘Cartel’ (Rennes was their home town!). Another example: the Bavarian village 'asphalt' does not exit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muniham (talk • contribs) 06:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Attention! Fake information! 

message: This article seems to be written from a very narrow viewpoint, so narrow that is becomes completely wrong in parts. 
The opening sentence, i.e. "A cartel is a formal (explicit) agreement among competing firms", gives me the impression that it was written by someone only aware of 20th century business use.
The 'Origins' section implies that the term came into being in the 1880s, and states that it came into the Anglosphere in the 1930s. I have no idea when it originated or where from but the word was in the Anglosphere at the turn of the 19th century when it was used to describe a communication channel between warring nations. I know for certain that a ship was used for a regular run between Boston & Nova Scotia for the exchange of captured seamen during the War of 1812 and that this was described as the 'cartel'. I also believe that the word may have been used during the 18th century to describe a go-between for offended parties prior to a duel when a 'second' was unavailable.
I am unable to comment of whether the word applies to the channel or the agreement, and do not think that the agreement needs to be formal.
So perhaps the opening sentence must be more in line of "A cartel is an agreement among competing entities". This leaves the rest of the article requiring a major rewrite, something I would have a go at except that I do not have enough certain knowledge.
Any comments? kimdino (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too narrow a definition 

message: I think there should be more emphasis to direct inquiries toward disambiguation. Evidently the use of the word has changed over the years, such as: " drug cartels are no longer[when?] actually cartels, but the term stuck and it is now[when?] popularly used to refer to any criminal narcotics related organization" -from another wiki article.Flight Risk (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cartel. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070912032322/http://www.usdoj.gov:80/atr/public/div_stats/211491.htm to http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/div_stats/211491.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060904173538/http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/staff/connor/papers/PRICE%20FIXING_OVERCHARGES_FULL_TEXT_8-20-05.pdf to http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/staff/connor/papers/PRICE%20FIXING_OVERCHARGES_FULL_TEXT_8-20-05.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: has removed some content apparently copied from this 1999 document (thanks, Mz7!). That material was apparently added during , which completely over-wrote the existing article with content partly from that source, and all showing every sign of having been copied from elsewhere. Our normal practice in a situation like this is to roll back to the last clean version before the first copyvio; that might be approximately  – essentially the whole of the current article would disappear. The alternative is for the page to be completely rewritten from the sources. Any volunteers?
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there was no reply here, so I've gone ahead with the roll-back – please see below. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.oecd.org/regreform/sectors/2376087.pdf and http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/alphabetic.cfm?LETTER=C. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: > "Although cartels are usually thought of as a group of corporations, some[who?] consider trade unions to be cartels, as they seek to raise the price of labor (wages) by preventing competition."
Besides using unsubstantiated weasel words, this is a somewhat strange claim with some obvious flaws.  It's not completely baseless, though.  The original sentence had a link to , which was removed by an edit at "13:49, 9 March 2017‎" when it was discovered the link was dead.  As a first step, I'm re-inserting a reference to the article here, using the archive.org copy.
I don't personally find it to be a valid position, but at least now readers can see the reasoning for themselves, and the name of the economist who wrote it (and his libertarian free-market positions and associations, such as "Congress should repeal all antitrust regulation").
I'm not an economist myself, so I have no idea if this is a widely held belief, or just one lone article.  If it is an extremist position, feel free to delete the whole paragraph.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.109.5.23 (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trade unions 

message: I think, to jugde about merger proposals, we should develop a compass about what change leads to more clarity. For this, I would suggest a map of the hierarchic levels of the relevant lemmas. So, what among the existing article terms are general or – on the other hand - sub topics or even sub-sub-topics?
I try to develop such a scheme as follows:
The top level is of course the „cartel“ as a general, comprehensive concept. For this we have „cartel (disambiguation) and „cartel (concept)“. Thus, these could, in principle and following linguistic logic, be merged. But under what title? – To choose „cartel (concept)“ would be an innovation for Wikipedia, nevertheless a concept explanation provides the disambiguation anyhow. To choose „cartel (disambiguation)“ would provide a more than short article limited to the switching function for other articles.
Having identified the general term like above, all specific cartels, such as „cartel (intergov. agreement)“, „state cartel“ and so on, are second level. Third level is for instance, the „cartel (ship)“, because subordinate to „cartel (intergov. agreement)“. In this perspective, the seemingly general article „cartel“ is wrongly named. It should better be called „cartel (economy)“, because it is limited to this sub area of real cartels, who regulate prices and output quantities. (However, this is the most important subject area of „cartel“). Thus, we have at least three articles of the second level: „cartel (intergov. agreement)“, „state cartel“ and „cartel (economy)“.
Now the above reasonings can be applied to the proposals of article mergers:
* „cartel (intergov. agreement)“ and „cartel (concept)“: this would be the same as merging „vegetable“ with „beans“, while having other special vegetable separate
* „cartel (intergov. agreement)“ and „cartel“ [in the identified sense of economic]: this also would mean the merger of a general and a specific term
Nevertheless, to my opinion, one change should surely be done:
* Rename „cartel“ to „cartel (economy)".
Two other changes should be discussed and, if positive, done:
* Could „cartel (ship) be integrated into „cartel (intergov. agreement) = a ship running to fullfil such an agreement. (This would be no violation of the rule of separating general and special subjects, because on the level of „cartel (ship)“ there is nothing similar, meaning: no second manifestation of the sub-sub-topic level. This material stands alone yet.)
* Can a disambiguation („cartel (dis …)“ be merged with an analytical article (on the same ground = „cartel (concept)“), which tells about the reasons of the different meanings?
L-scriptor (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Answer to the merger proposals of Feb 2020 „cartel (intergov. agreement)“ and „cartel (concept)“ or „cartel (intergov. agreement)“ and „cartel“:  Hierarchical levels as criterion for article mergers, article divisions, or article renamings

message: This article pretends to be general by starting with „cartel“ only. But then a limitation follows: „This article is about economic cartels“. Thus, we start with an imprecise lemma.
To avoid this, we should rename „cartel“ to „cartel (economy)". - The colleagues from the French and German Wikipedia use this designation since long: „Cartel (économie)“ and „Wirtschaftskartell“.
L-scriptor (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal: Renaming of „cartel“ to „cartel (economy)“