Talk:Blood diamond/Archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of discussion on the Blood diamond talk page.
Please do not edit this page - for discussion related to topics here please add to current talk page and link to this page.'
Contents |
[edit] NPOV
" For many people, this was their first mainstream exposure to the term and the concept." - that seems like it gonna be very hard to verify, i am not removing it just yet.
- Removed. SauliH 15:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Conflict Diamonds and De Beers
The Kimberley Process described in this article is intended in part to help sustain the De Beers monopoly in the diamond trade, by supressing diamonds which are not controlled by De Beers. The main reason that diamonds have such a high price is because of an artificial limit on the supply, maintained by De Beers. The Kimberly Process helps keep the supply low, and helps keep the price high, which in turn helps keep the conflict diamond prices high.
A much more effective way to take the profits out of conflict diamonds would be to break up De Beers into about ten competing companies, and divide their reserve diamonds among them. If the break up was properly structured, the resulting companies would need to compete with each other. They would need to sell a much larger volume of diamonds each year, the price would plunge, many more people could enjoy wearing diamonds, and there would be much less money going to bloody conflicts in Africa.
Okay, great. Are you suggesting adding this to the article, or are you just soapboxing? yEvb0 02:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay.. the whole "blood diamonds used in Sept 11th attacks" sounds like total propaganda used as an argument against the industry. Its not verifiable and does not belong in a Wikipedia entry describing conflict diamonds. By extension, you could say "the airplane industry was a key participant in permitting the sept 11th incident to occur." Delete. --TheGhost
[edit] Possible Misuse of the Word "Sanction"
The article contains the phrase "In some cases, the United Nations has sanctioned the export of conflict diamonds, arguing that their trade finances armies in fighting against legitimate governments and perpetrating human rights abuses, and prolongs devastating wars." Do you mean they have sanctioned i.e. affirm the validity of the export of said diamonds or have applied sanctions to i.e. restrictions on their export?
128.151.161.49Iain Marcuson
[edit] One-company cartel = "monopoly"
[edit] Suggestions
Article name should be "blood diamond" because:
- It gets 40 times as many Google hits
- It conveys the connotation that the blood of innocent non-combatants is shed during the battles financed by the gems.
We need to discover and write about the motives of people trying to ban or curtail sales of these diamonds.
- The two groups mentioned in the intro: are they anti-Communist? So do we only care about blood diamonds when the rebels who sell them oppose Communism?
- Diamond sellers, particularly in the West (e.g., the U.S. and Europe), don't want all diamonds tarred with the same brush. I read just today about PR efforts to distance themselves from West African wars. (See An icy reception for film in the Washington Times.)
How much influence does the UN have in this matter?
- Do they have legal authority to ban blood diamond exports?
- If so, what treaty gives them this authority, and what countries are bound by this treaty?
It would be nice if we could do all this writing in time for the opening of DiCaprio's Blood Diamond (film), because we're likely to get a lot of hits. --Uncle Ed 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- The United Nations Security Council has directed all states to ban the export of Diamonds from Angola in resolution 1173. This is just a straightforward example of trade sanctions, under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. I don't see a reason for confusion. Morwen - Talk 14:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- See UNSC resolution 1173: "...prohibit the direct or indirect import from Angola to their territory of all diamonds that are not controlled through the Certificate of Origin regime ... " --Uncle Ed 15:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I honestly think that the title "Blood Diamond" is a very emotionally-charged phrase with many connotations, and thus not NPOV. The term "Conflict Diamond" seems much more impartial. Granted, I'm not advocating the sale of conflict diamonds, but I do think that the current title is leaning a little too far to one side. Arius Maximus 04:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with the notion that the term Blood Diamond is a POV name. In all the industry references the term used is conflict diamond. Blood Diamond I believe has received recognition from the movie. Properly termed however, it should be conflict diamond. A move back to conflict diamond would be beneficial. SauliH 05:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] World Diamond Council
Hey I can't edit the external links for some reason but it needs to be noted that the World Diamond Council is an NGO that is owned and operated, covertly, by Da Beers. So it should be labeled as such.
Peace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.151.255.22 (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
- You are incorrect in this. Yes De Beers has a vested interest in the WDC, but IT is NOT De Beers. Look at the membership of the WDC, and you will see that it it is beyond them. To put any comment forward that it is a De Beers puppet Organisation is grossly misleading and inaccurate. SauliH 02:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
WDC is De Beers and De Beers partner companies WDC funds diamondfacts.org which is the top sponsored site on google adsense for the keyword blood diamonds. Check RealDiamonfacts.org for the truth behind diamonds. ALso 65% of Diamonds come from Africa so how can the cartel distance themselves from whats going on in Africa—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.13.50.154 (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
You cannot make this assertion. The World Diamond Council is made up primarily of the world diamond bourses which are independant of De Beers. Once again please review the membership of WDC before making naive assertions. SauliH 16:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removed Paragraphs
What does this paragraph mean or relate to? I removed it because it didn't make sense in the context of the article.
- Current initiatives to continue to improve the situation include the diamond development initiative to improve "artisanal" mining, or subsistence level small scale work. Currently, these small scale mines offer are not secure, and the workers are often underpaid with no regard to safety.
Anyone? SauliH 04:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Also this paragraph -
- The U.S. Government Accountability Office reported in September 2006 that conflict diamonds are still entering the United States.[citation needed]
I searched the report and could not find a reference which specified actual conflict diamonds entering the US. If you can find where please cite (and if you would, please include a direct quote here), and feel free to place this back into the article. Oh, and if you mean that not all diamonds that entered the US were KPCS certified, then forget it, it does not mean they WERE confict diamonds. adding it back in for this reason is hard to justify. SauliH 07:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Also this paragraph -
- Conflict diamonds may also be becoming less traceable.
If this can be built up great, add back in. I believe it may have been in context with the al-Qaeda mention, but did not make sense with it. 'May also be becoming' sounds weasel word to me, and what is meant by less traceable. With the KPCS how does less traceable happen? It sounds like supposition to me. But prove me wrong please. SauliH 07:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Gemesis and Apollo
In the context of marketing using conflict diamonds, I searched for verification that Gemesis and Apollo used the conflict diamond subject as a part of their marketing to no avail. If you can find the company doing so, (and not someone else suggesting it) feel free to add it back in, but as of right now they are out. SauliH 07:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- I find it highly unlikely they would. They sell both synthetic diamonds and their competitive edge does not lie so much in the fact their diamonds are not blood diamonds, but that they are cheaper and equally good as a natural diamond. (Take cultured and natural pearls as an example). Moreover they can provide colored diamonds which are particularly expensive. Finally, although I see on Apollo's website they will sell diamonds for jewelry purposes as well their main focus has always been industrial diamonds (but correct me if I am wrong; I am not 100 % certain). That would make a comparison with blood diamonds totally useless. I for one would be curious to see where in their campaign they had specifically used it.
Gem-fanat 22:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
OK.. I just saw Adia. I take it back. They CAN be that lame. They should fire their marketeer (but that's my personal opinion).
Gem-fanat 22:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Canadian Diamonds and Promotion.
The recent addition of the reference to Canada: A Diamond-Producing Nation by the National Conference Board of Canada is better than no ref at all, but we still need a ref to the country using their position as a promotional tool. This ref still lacks the required 'promotional' aspect. I will restore the fact tag until we find another ref, and I will leave this ref in place. SauliH 00:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have added a source which seems to indicate Canada's marketing is somewhat more subtle than saying "our diamonds are conflict-free". This is the best source I was able to find since it extensively discusses a national Canadian strategy of 2003 in a law journal. Strategy looks fairly straightforward: 1) be active in Kimberley and related legislation to combat blood diamonds. 2) brand your own diamonds as "from Canada" (which obviously cannot be blood diamonds).
Gem-fanat 16:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bush quote
What pupose does the Bush quote serve? I am of the feeling that we should turn this into prose, with a ref to the quote. It is long, and does not flow well with the article. What do you all think? SauliH 05:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Agree, we could perhaps summarize in one sentence the paragraph which I had to read 3 times to begin to understand it anyway ! (but then again I am not a native speaker). I think the article could probably gain some debt, in describing how the trade of blood diamonds works or pinpointing the loopholes in Kimberley etc (Nat. Geo had a very good documentary a few years ago).
Gem-fanat 00:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
