Talk:Blood diamond

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Diamond Blood diamond is part of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Gemstones, Jewelry, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

The entire Sierra Leone extract comes from http://www.un.org/peace/africa/Diamond.html and is not referenced as such.
This article is supported by WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, business subpage.
WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry To-do:
Africa
Africa Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] Why I questioned the neutrality of this article

There is no mention here of particular critiques of the Kimberly Certification Process concerning whether it is successful in reducing the sale of conflict diamonds. Many opponents have noted that this scheme is the bare minimum in certification. This is basically a call for the industry to self-regulate with the help of many countries that have rampant levels of corruption. There is a lack of independent oversight to the certification scheme. Certification is to be provided by the governments of diamond exporting areas, which in the case of many diamond producing nations is problematic due to considerably high levels of corruption. Diamonds coming from countries that are not included in the scheme can smuggle diamonds into those that are, then be certified through corrupt practices. Additionally the diamond industry is a massive business 1% is still a large amount of money, and a considerable amount of related conflict.

I am concerned this article is biased in the favor of diamond companies, and does not consider relevant critiques. The statement concerning the prevalence of conflict diamonds internationally, figures are given by The World Diamond Council, which is hardly a neutral source. They might have the greatest amount of data on the subject but is it expected that they deliver data that makes them look positively or negatively. The Kimberly Process Certification Scheme page does have some critiques posted on it albeit the lack of references. There is also no mention of the poor conditions of some diamond operations, which effect health and welfare of the individuals employed.

    • Please remember that this article deals with conflict not working conditions SauliH 15:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

With the recent payments by microsoft to people to edit Wikipedia articles in their favor, I don't think we can be too careful.


    • This article notes that despite the scheme conflict diamonds are still finding their way across borders in some african countries to be certified in others.
  • http://www.pacweb.org/e/

A number of articles concerning illegal smuggling across borders The above unsigned comments were made on 31 January 2007 by User:Autopoeisis

If you have issues with content in this article, please go ahead and make your contribution to the article, where it can expand and complete the issues. Just make sure you cite well. SauliH 15:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging with Kimberley process

Don't agree. The article would become too lengthy and though associated the two topics (in my opinion) are still different enough (blood diamonds and consequences; a description of a particular process)to merit two separate articles. Alternatively we could also combine all articles dealing with particular aspects of diamonds inside the "diamond" article and create one huge article....

Gem-fanat 00:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

KPCS is a related article of Blood Diamonds. I fell that we have been gradually building each of these articles, and each can happily develop seperately. KPCS is an ongoing subject, and as time goes by more detail will need to be added with the developments that arise. Hopefully blood diamonds will dissappear from existence, but chances are they are at least here for the midterm and developments will oocur which will need article development also. Merging I feel will not contribute much. SauliH 06:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Since little opinion was offered to support the merge I move for the removal of the merge tags. SauliH 22:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sierra Leone section - inline citations please

The expansion to the Sierra Leone has improved the article imeensely, however there is a void of inline citations. Could the editor please add these in? SauliH 06:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whitewashing? No examples of companies that deal(t) conflict diamonds

Why does this article not have examples of companies that deal(t) conflict diamonds? For example, to say only that Angola was prohibited from exporting diamonds is certainly not as informative as stating where and to whom those diamonds were being exported, as well as who produced them. Is this whitewashing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.69.14.35 (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Do you have any sources for companies that have sold conflict diamonds? BJTalk 07:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added Archive

Created the first archive page here --SauliH 01:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blood Diamonds recent documentary on CNN International

They showed how diamonds without any certs.. could be smuggled all the way to Europe. Then the journalist, who is a black and African actually posed as a black, African miner who found 50.000 $ of rough diamonds (but which were actually given to CNN for use in the documentary). The journalist went in the Diamond district with a hidden camera. He soon found many dealers who did not mind buying directly from the mines in Congo.. and actually invited him to come back when he had found more. Oh... they only offered 10.000 $$ of course.

Gem-fanat 16:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sierra Leone

The section is extremely similar to that of the article from the United Nations. This seems like a copyright infringement. mirageinred 05:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slanderous or factual?

I am all for telling the truth but this page seems to be resembling a hate page against DeBeers. Yes they are doing some really dodgy things, but Wiki is supposed to be objective. I really think we need to ensure articles like these remain objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oupoot (talk • contribs) 22:44, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

I think you are confusing objectivity with ambivalence. If an organization has done terrible things it would not be objective to artificially force a non-judgmental view. I do not necessarily believe that your point concerning DeBeers is invalid but your logic is incorrect and therefore the argument you make is invalid. 72.65.196.126 16:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section should be improved or removed

The 'Criticism' section is incoherent. I definitely think that this page should include critiques of the Kimberley process and can in an evenhanded way lay out the criticisms of DeBeers, but as it stands this section is bringing down the quality of the whole article and should be removed until it can be improved.

[edit] neutrality

I added NPOV because I believe the picture of the Sierra Leone war victim does not add to the reader's information on the history of diamonds financing the insurgency, it only serves to evoke an emotional response to the diamond industry. The text of the article is fine, just remove the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing the pictures just makes things sterile and not objective. If the cold reality makes some people uncomfortable, that's what the dissemination of information does. Removing pictures is NOT objective. That's a clear decision with biases. How ridiculous! You can't make this an acceptable practice: just remove the picture and then everything will be just 'lilly white bread' and comfortable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.9.38 (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The photo is a clear depiction of one of the victims of the type of conflict for which conflict diamonds are named. It serves to inform, visually, of the repercussions of conflict diamonds. In context, it should not necessarily evoke any particular reaction to the entire diamond industry, but is entirely topical to the subject of conflict diamonds. Evoking an emotional reaction is in no wise mutually exclusive with responsible, objective information. NPOV is a poor excuse for excising information, visual or otherwise, that is topical and informative. Would it be a justifiable by NPOV to remove pictures of nuclear blast victims from an article on nuclear war or nuclear weapons, simply because it may evoke a negative emotional reaction towards the producers of nuclear weapons? --SamClayton (talk) 07:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] missing bracket

under this section, one pretty long sentence + missing a closing bracket. pls help to edit.

adjusted by the Council in resolutions 1289 of February 8, 2000 and 1299 of May 19, 2000, making UNAMSIL the second largest peacekeeping force currently deployed by the United Nations (the largest such contingent is in the Congo following international concern at the role played by the illegal diamond trade in fueling conflict in Sierra Leone, the Security Council adopted resolution 1306 on July 5, 2000 imposing a ban on the direct or indirect import of rough diamonds from Sierra Leone not controlled by the Government of Sierra Leone through a Certificate of Origin regime.

--Xaiver0510 (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] conflict-neutral diamonds

I removed this sentence which somebody recently added as the last sentence of the section.

"As conflict diamonds are sold the world over, a bride may wear on her finger, a blood diamond."

The statement is also not clearly related to the 'conflict-neutral diamonds' section. It also seemed to me that this does not contribute to the content of the article but sounds like somebody trying to make a point. The article already contains details about the history of blood diamonds as well as estimates of what percent of diamonds are 'blood diamonds'.

Rfrohardt (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)