Talk:Diamond/Archive 5
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My fellow wikipedians- Let me first say that I was a little hasty in labelling the sentence I edited weaselly, what I really meant was clunky and ambiguous. I only intended my edit to be a minor polish (really only the lightest of buffing), but seeing as it has created some slight friction, here is my rational: Why is this sentence not good?-
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
|
Some controversy over diamonds has been generated because of the monopolistic practices historically employed by De Beers including strict control of supply and alleged price manipulation, as well as the practice by some African paramilitary groups of selling conflict diamonds in order to fund their often violent activities.
1) This sentence is clunky. It is too long, and has a few ambiguities
2) The use of some is unnecessary (remove the some and the sentence says the same thing, only in a crisper fashion)
3) Controversy over diamonds -As in they do not really exist? They are bad for your health? Diamonds are really jellyfish? What the sentence actually means is that there has been criticism of the diamond industry.
4) The diamond industry is the subject of the sentence. The sentence reads better, and is less ambiguous if the subject (The diamond industry) is first. This is true for almost all complex sentences.
5) You only use the word alleged where there has been an unproven accusation- a proven allegation is no longer an allegation. DeBeers has been found guilty in the US of routine price fixing, and almost every independent investigation of the diamond industry agrees that DeBeers stiches up the market in one way or another. DeBeer's price fixing needs to be presented strongly, simply and as a fact, certainly not as an allegation.
6) The conflict diamond section is an area which is genuinely controversial in that the morality of supporting the various paramilitaries in Africa, is often unclear (are they goodies? are they baddies?). Some say the free market should not get involved in local politics. Some say it is unfair to single the diamond industry out for such practices. Therefore this is an area of controversy and not criticism, unlike supply restrictions and price fixing which are uncontroversial criticisms
7) Often violent activities is needless filler. If paramilitaries are violent then they are controversial, if they are nonviolent then they cease to be controversial to the point that people would protest against their involvement in commerce. Paramilitaries are sometimes violent, this is implied by the word paramilitary, so the reader does not need to be reminded that although they non-violently brush their teeth, repair schools, and drive cars, they also, on occasion, shoot people.
Therefore I find this version of the passage better for the reasons outlined above: