Talk:Cartel (intergovernmental agreement)

Merge proposal

These articles appear to be discussing the same subject, and even (solely!) cite the same source. More sources are also necessary to establish the subject's notability in general. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Merge to Cartel, @Rosguill: also note the existing page Cartel. We don't need either of these two forks. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  Polyamorph, the current article and Cartel (concept) appear to be trying to narrow in on a subtopic. It's possible that sources are available to support its independent notability, in which case they could potentially stand apart from Cartel. But yeah, if no other sources exist then merging to Cartel is the way to go. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose merge as stated, and the alternative of merging both to Cartel. I note that since the above discussion, Cartel (intergovernmental agreement) has been better referenced. It seems that Cartel (intergovernmental agreement) is a historical use for what is now a convention in the sense of treaty. So, I think that the topics of governmental cartels (which we might, using more neutral language think of as treaties), are distinct from non-governmental cartels. Then again, perhaps they're not ... but that would be a strong POV and politically sensitive claim. Regarding Cartel (concept): that single-source page, almost a disambiguation page, is best merged somewhere else ... probably Cartel theory where it helps to build the context of those theories by giving some definitions or background/context. Klbrain (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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)

---

L-scriptor, I'm having a hard time following your argument here (and it really shouldn't be in a separate section if you're trying to respond to the discussion above). From what I do understand however, I would argue in response that we need to be paying attention to how reliable sources discuss these terms, not just coming up with an ontology based on our own understanding of them. If reliable sources treat these terms as having significant differences, then they should have different articles; I have yet to see sources establishing such a difference, which is why I opened the merge discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Dear Rosguill …. No, sorry, my argument is no „ontology based on [my] own understanding“, but corresponds to subject classification, which is based on the principle of general and sub terms. The most understandable example for is may be in the Wiki article about „Dewey Decimal Classification“. 500 Natural sciences and mathematics

   510 Mathematics
       516 Geometry
           516.3 Analytic geometries
               516.37 Metric differential geometries
                   516.375 Finsler geometry

From this, you can recognize the hierarchy of general to special subjects.

This was just for the principle. - Now we can approach the specific cartel concept topic. If you need literature about this, the best sources have been published in German. There is a pdf-text, you may insert into the Google translator and then you will be likely to understand the essence:

• Holm Arno Leonhardt: Zum Bedeutungswandel des Kartellbegriffs und zu seiner Anwendbarkeit auf nichtwirtschaftliche Kooperationsformen / On the Change of Meaning of the Cartel Concept and its Applicability for Non-Economical Modes of Cooperation, https://www.uni-hildesheim.de/media/fb1/geschichte/beitraege_diskussionspapiere/2009-10-05_Kartellbegriff.pdf

Besides linguistic history, this text is occupied with the hierarchy of general and sub-terms related to „cartel“. - Nevertheless, there is a comprehensive ordinary book by Leonhardt – amongst other subjects - also about our topic or issue. The book is mentioned in Wikipedia: „cartel (concept)“. Older literature by e.g. Harald Enke (1972) is also available.

Another way to approach the problem is to check and analyze all cartel-related articles in Wikipedia by yourself: How general or special are the themes or topics. By this practical doing you will come to a sense of classification hierarchy, which forbids to mix an article about e.g. mammals with specific texts about e.g. the arctic wolf or the Tasman kangaroo.

Well, I would appreciate changes in the article structure in the subject field of “cartel”. But I would recommend to keep them according to linguistic and subject logic. L-scriptor (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

---

L-scriptor, from reading through the provided source, I still think that Polyamorph has provided the best suggestion so far, which is to merge this article (and Cartel (concept)) to Cartel, and write Cartel to be the broadest possible overview of cartels. Then, each subtype of cartel gets a section in that article. If any of the subsections have citations to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, then it's worth separating those subconcepts. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Rosguill, what you describe is not so far away from my opinion. – The primary concern I would have with your project draft is the danger to get a much too long and unwieldy article “cartel”. Generally, I would appreciate a cautious approach and a more detailed revision plan. For instance, I would recommend to separate “cartel” and “cartel (economy)” from the start on, because the latter is the most voluminous and not apt to be only a subordinate part of “cartel”. Other ‘cartel sorts’ should also be checked for their specific character and thus separatibility. - Apart from that, Rosguill, start on with your big revision project … L-scriptor (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad that we're on the same page. I do want to point out that as I originally came across this article while doing new page patrol, I may not be able to get to working on this in the short term. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)