Talk:De Beers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the assessment scale.
Diamond De Beers 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 article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article is supported by WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, business subpage.
WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry To-do:

Contents

[edit] Equity Ownership

Can someone expand on the ownership situation over the years? It was taken private in '01. When did they take it public, and how much did they sell to the public?--193.10.6.147 11:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article comment

Now and in the past De Beers has sold diamonds mined from their own mines, most of which are in South Africa and Botswana. De Beers also sells diamonds that do NOT originate in their own mines. I forget the statistics, but I think De Beers own mines accounted for maybe 35% of world supply (by value) while they were responsible for marketing up to 80%. Many independent producers choose to market their diamonds through the De Beers's 'Central Selling Organisation' in London.


[edit] Prison labour

I studied the Mineral Revolution as part of my History Tripos here at Cambridge and I have never come across a reference to De Beers using prison labour before the twentieth century. It's more than likely that someone was confusing actual prisons with the closed compounds used by De Beers, known to black workers as "prisons". The best source is Robert Turrell's "Capital and labour on the Kimberley diamond fields", whilst S Marks & A Atmore's "Economy and society in pre-industrial South Africa", and Neil Worden's "The making of modern South Africa" provide more concise overviews. Could someone put in a footnote at the relevant point, preferably after the word <hangovers>? I'll find the ISBN etc for the books I mentioned. I went ahead and made the changes as there doesn't seem to have been any discussion on this topic since 2005. Rusty2005 12:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The workers are actually slaves since they're not owners. It should be obvious that the wage system causes world poverty & USA forces it on the world, in ignorance. Few people think the wage is slavery, because they thought slaves didn't get paid, but of course some did ("Black Slave Owners in South Carolina" & other sources). Look at the way plantations won't let married men & women live together (if black--in Africa--History channel story) so that's slavery. They don't wear chains, & they do get paid, but not much, & that's slavery. If USA would just end our wage system it would quickly end world poverty.

Look at any "real" slave plantation & see the overseers on the plantations were paid white men, like managers & CEO's today, so they're slaves too. What I'm saying should help end the wage system (capitalism) & then we'd end world poverty. Prisons are slave plantations too, & the "guards" are no more than slaves today, because the wage really is slavery & employees are slaves, & corporations are slave plantations. No one is free until all people own all diamonds & mines, & all things, so that food & medicine & building 100-story live/work/play tower cities connected to trains (& eliminate cars & small buildings) worldwide would be free. Why are people more worried about "who will do the work" (if not forced to work for wages--see the slavery?) than "how can we quickly end WORLD POVERTY?" There is no such thing as "non-blood diamonds" or anything else. Blood is on everything made, bought & sold, because it's all made with slave labor (the wage) but especially diamonds. "Conflict free" diamonds are lies, & USA buys half of the diamonds so USA helps cause world poverty, & has to end our wage system to end world poverty. Sundiiiaaa 02:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

--

Save the communist editorials. ~BLOX~

[edit] Artificial scarcity

I think this is misleading. For many years De Beers has maintained what might be termed a buffer supply in a relatively successful attempt to stabilise the value of diamonds. The key is in the word 'stabilise'. For a variety of reasons the supply of diamonds can fluctuate quite dramatically from one year to another and even more dramatically from one month to another. These fluctuations are certainly not in the interest of the producers, local workers, producing countries or even consumers. That last word 'consumers' is probably the only controversial part of the previous sentence, but remember that most consumers regard diamonds as a 'store of value' and part of their allure is their scarcity and value. As a diamond does not depreciate in the usual sense I do not imagine that many consumers would be that pleased to find diamonds had suddenly halved in value. Let me also stress that this would not happen. De Beers may be a rich and powerful company, but it could not possibly hope to maintain an artificial scarcity for long. The cost of doing so is almost inconceivable.

For what it is worth, readers may be interested to know that even from one of the world's most productive mines it is necessary to shift approximately 300 tons of rock to produce a 1 carat gem quality diamond. Doesn't seem so expensive put like that does it?

'10,000 prison labourers' - I spent ten years with De Beers, and I've never heard this one before. As someone said I think the dates don't fit with the apartheid laws. Also anyone who has studied the history of De Beers would see that the Oppenheimer family who have run De Beers since the beginning of the last century have been among the most outspoken opponents of Apartheid.



Another reason for the boycott of De Beers is that some alledge the company's diamonds have connections to the 9/11 terrorist attack. Al Qaeda allegedly sold diamonds illegally (see blood diamonds) to fuel the attack. Also, in Sierra Leone, millions of people are killed and the weapons are paid by selling diamonds, helping the De Beers in their monopoly. Through this, the life expectancy of the citizens of Sierra Leone has been in the thirties.

This paragraph cites no sources (paticularly in regards to Sierra Leone) and hardly seems to have a NPOV. The conclusion seems to be that De Beers is responsible for buying the diamonds from Sierra Leone which I don't believe is true. --BHC 11:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


Can someone write a little about DeBeers Mining interests.

Can anyone tell me what kind of music was played during the De Beers diamond commercial? (the year was 2000)

- Yup it was 'Palladio Allegretto' by Karl Jenkins. On a side note, more could probably by said in the entry about DeBeers frequent run ins with human rights groups. --Inexplicable 22:48, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I found a Washington Post article that gave the year of the original charge (1994) and it was apparently only aimed at their price fixing for industrial diamonds. The $10 million fine seems less like a pittance when this is considered, since industrial diamonds are only a $500 million market (as opposed to $60 Billion for diamond jewlery)--AAMiller 02:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Am I wrong in thinking that there should be a seperate page cataloging the rise of the cartel and how it began to inflate prices? Or at least a seperate section? --67.190.229.202 07:15, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Wow, this page needs a complete and total rewrite. Isn't there anybody knowledgeable around here to take it up? I know only a little about the subject, and not sure I could be NPOV. :-)

At any rate, the following two sentences:

De Beers has been for many years under indictment in the United States for antitrust violations.

and

It has been alleged that De Beers uses its monopoly to create an artificial scarcity of diamonds, thus keeping prices high.

are both pretty ridiculous. De Beers is a South African country, and that's the whole point--they would never be allowed to operate in the US as they currently do. Standard Oil was a schoolkid compared to them. But, since they are in another country, I seriously doubt that there are US criminal proceedings against them, although I suppose I could be wrong. I am pretty sure, however, that no reasonable person would contest the fact that diamond prices are inflated by an artificial scarcity; alleged is just a weasel word in this case. That's how the company came into existence in the first place: as a cartel of diamond mines that saw prices falling too fast. -TimeLord mbw 23:04, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The article is perhaps inadequate but the two points used as examples above are both true. Timelord's views are not correct. I will remove the NPOV tag if there is no cogent argument. Paul Beardsell 21:38, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Ah, OK, the NPOV tag has already been removed. I have now provided erxternal links to contradict Timelord. Paul Beardsell 21:50, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Interesting; I stand corrected on the indictment part. I said I could be wrong, and I was. Although, I have to say the articles weren't entirely clear--are the indictments against company management, all employees, or on any part of the company that might operate in the US?
And as for the second point, as I said just above <ahem>, I wasn't taking issue with the truthfulness of the statement, but the phrasing. Specifically, the use of the word "alleged", which I see someone else has fixed. -TimeLord mbw 02:07, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

My father worked for De Beers and Anglo American for in the 70's and 80's. Senior executives were warned off visiting the USA at one time: They could have been subpoenaed as witnesses. I agree the articles weren't entirely clear and I am not sure as to the legal position exactly. Paul Beardsell 03:37, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

This article is out of date again. De Beers pled guilty in July 2004, and was fined $10m. A neat deal for them considering they make $2bn profit on $5bn turnover per year! There are now plans for the De Beers SA - LVMH joint venture (De Beers LV) to open a store on Fifth Avenue, NYC. They currently have stores in London and Tokyo. Pcb21| Pete 12:12, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The DeBeers store in London merely uses the (licensed) name of DeBeers - they are not a part of the DTC. DTC do not sell cut diamonds. DTC have no operations in the US, working exclusively through brokers, as a result of legal concerns. I therefore presume that the US store is related in a similar fashion.

The article describes De Beers as a monopoly, but it is in the cartel category. Could someone with a better understanding of these terms clear this up? 24.224.171.172 2 July 2005 21:34 (UTC)

Some information about the operation of DeBeers in India - http://inquirer.gn.apc.org/childcut.html I seriously doubt the condition in Africa (especially in Congo (RC) and Angola) is any better. hashinclude 22 April 2006 17:07 (UTC)

[edit] apartheid laws

"19th century, DeBeers was using over 10,000 prison laborers daily. The majority of the prisoners were incarcerated because of strict apartheid laws".

Is this true? I was under the impression apartheid was only formaly introduced in the 40's. anyway i'm ready to stand corrected 132.185.132.12 10:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


The apartheid era lasted from 1948 until 1994, so you are correct. User:KG

They should call the laborers "slaves" because that's what they are, as are all employees worldwide, but USA didn't think so, nor anyone else. It's true, corporations are slave plantations & the wage system is slavery. Most books don't say it, but that doesn't mean the wage isn't slavery. All people should have a Guaranteed Income (RFID) to end world poverty quickly (which kills 11 million children every year) & work part-time building only 100-story live/work/play Tower cities connected to maglev Trains by working part-time. You can't SEE who the "criminals" are until you see what makes people do evil things like kill people--it's all caused by the wage which is slavery & should not be legal. Sundiiiaaa 02:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WARNING: this article contains controversial/radical opinions

This article is politically biased and contains unproven accusations linking the De Beers corp. with the 9/11 attacks on New York City. No verifiable evidence, citation, or source is given in the article for these accusations.


I'm removing the weasel words template from the article because I cannot find the justification on this talk page. Robertvan1 (the one who added the tag) has not explained his reasoning, and it is therefore impossible to engage in constructive discussion/debate to resolve his perceived "weasel words". If anyone feels that the weasel words template is justified, please re-add the template to the article AND post your justification/reasoning here. Rlax 05:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


For what its worth I think the 911/Al Qaeda comments are referring to the black market purchase of West African conflict diamonds by Hizballah/Hamas and perhaps Al Qaeda and other groups in the 1980s and 1990s. Presumably these diamonds would then be reintroduced into the legitimate market place by the end buyer (at least this is the premise behind the Kimberley Protocol). Among many others ways of doing this, I suppose De Beers might possibly be involved if the black marketeers can find a way to use them), but only after smuggling/laundering and so on. By this argument Citibank is equally responsible for 911.

[edit] De Beers Jewish?

I have read on some discussions board runned by Jew paranoid-extremists that De beers is "Jewish". Is there any substance behind that statement at all? XavierTheGreat 23:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I've never found any evidence of De Beers being set up or run by people of Jewish descent. And even if it was, so what? Rusty2005 08:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

For a century or so the Oppenheimer family have been the driving force behind De Beers. I believe Sir Ernest Oppenheimer was of German Jewish extraction, but I dont think any recent members of the family have been Jewish. And if they were, so what? It has certainly never been a company with a Jewish 'culture'.

Sir Ernest Oppenheimer was Jewish and converted to Christianity. He is buried in a Christian cemetery. One of his biographers said his conversion was the result of a spiritual crisis he underwent in adulthood. Hypatea (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Missing

This article would benefit from a criticism section, including, but not limited to its monopoly and artificial scarcity. User:Stargate70

http://apscuhuru.org/ has some interesting critical information regarding De Beers and the diamond industry in general.

Why have the US Court links been removed in this edit? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_Beers&diff=101373864&oldid=99909618 Also, most part of the edit seems biased to me, another example would be the removal of the part which said that artificial diamonds can be closer to perfection than natural ones.

[edit] No monopoly

Why does this article say that they have a "near total monopoly"? That's not true. Maybe in the 80's when they had a 90% share, but not today. By 1992 their market share was down to 62%. I'm sure today, it's lower. Probably around 50%. As in any de facto monopoly, they don't last unless government protects the monopoly from competition. Economizer 18:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency with other diamond articles

Not sure how articles on diamonds have become a features series. There are numerous inconsistencies between this article and others (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamonds_as_an_investment), on items such as De Beers' share of the world diamond market, and which country is the second largest market after the US (Hong Kong or Japan?). QuinnHK 21:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] upcoming vandalism

Just a heads up... December 14th 2006 www.questionablecontent.net, a fairly popular webcomic, just posted a comic mentioning this particular article and a character mentions repeatedly editing and reverting it. I would not be at all surprised if this article undergoes some vandalism in the next day or so. 24.128.152.12 05:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)greg

Requested semi-protection on WP:RPP. Let's see what they say. --Dgies 06:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I have the smallest faith in the QC community. More likely they ' ll come here, like I did, just to see if it was vandalized, or at least made protected, and thereafter go home peaceably.69.171.144.153 11:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought the same, but "QC Lover1337" proved us wrong. [1] :-( Benabik 14:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Sigh, 2nd request, finally semi-protected. --Dgies 05:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It is really reverted!!! You conspirators! :) Frigo 12:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That is the trouble with anyone referencing any Wikipedia subject in any kind of popular culture. The article about the subject immediately gets vandalized. - Fearless Son 18:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic, but it's not really Wikipedia's "subject." It's a subject someone decided to write an article IN wikipedia about. If you read the notice when you post, it says something along the lines of "be prepared to have your contributions mercilessly edited." Notice it says nothing about vandalism? Vandalism is something that, unfortunately, will always be a part of wikipedia. Fortunately we have diligent bot-coders and RVers that work to minimize these casualties of war. Try not ot be so -- upset about it. It's easily reverted, and will pass in a few days. The people just want their contribution to a joke to go on a permanently archived page on teh internetz. Don't have so much faith in humanity! =P // 3R1C 03:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I think he meant mentioning any Wikipedia article. Benabik 14:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that is what I meant. Sorry for any confusing semantics.  :p - Fearless Son 22:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I always find that funny. History and facts are, after all, what you interpret them to be. Who says this interpretation is the correct one?

Personally, I think the comment in the comic should be added to the paragraph talking about the DeBeers marketing campaign. That paragraph is long and obtuse, and deserves a concise summary. Just because the originator of the summary was a webcomic author doesn't invalidate the summary in the least. It needs a little editing since it doesn't really fit the Wikipedia style as is, but I think the tweaks I made were quite worthy. Omnifarious 21:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Placing that text in the main sections of the article would be presenting it as fact, thereby violating Wikipedia's principles of verifiability and neutral point of view. --Dgies 03:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand where the opinion is. It seems to me that the statement follows quite logically as a summary of the paragraph and contains no opinion. Can you please describe what you see as the opinion so I understand? Thanks. Omnifarious 05:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Since you haven't bothered to answer, I'm forced to assume that you simply consider this vandalism because the text first appeared in a Webcomic that mentioned Wikipedia. I don't think this is a valid test of whether something deserves to be in Wikipedia or not. The only responses I've gotten from you have been to read specific entries about how to behave on Wikipedia. I have read these entries, and I fail to see how they apply. It is perhaps my intellectual incompetence at work here, and I would greatly appreciate enlightenment. But you haven't been forthcoming with your reasoning on why they should apply and so I am denied. To me "Subverting humanity's drive to reproduce for the purpose of selling more diamonds." seems like a succinct and accurate summary of DeBeers ad campaign. Omnifarious 20:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It is from a very biased point of view: WP:NPOV. Presenting unreferenced opinion as fact violates WP:NOR. Because it alleges some unproven master plan by De Beers, it is unverifiable: WP:V. By introducing a joke from a webcomic as factual information, you also run afoul of WP:VAND Silly vandalism. Introducing your opinion in an article is not itself vandalism, but you have "unclean hands" because you were copying a pop-culture reference about POV-pushing in this article. --Dgies 05:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The only one of these I can possibly agree with is WP:NPOV. This is mostly because of the tone, and not the factual content. The factual content is already substantiated by the existing referenced sources. For the vast majority of the world, engagement, marriage and reproduction are strongly linked, so reframing DeBeers ad campaign that targets engagement rings as targetting reproduction in general is not stretching the facts.
As far as calling it vandalism and giving me a warning... The vast majority of the content I've added to Wikipedia has been just fine. And in this, despite copying it from a webcomic, I didn't throw it just anywhere and I edited it to try to fit Wikipedia's general style better. It was a good faith effort to improve Wikipedia. I do not believe that Wikipedia entries have to be dry, boring and devoid of humor. But it is hard to manage humor and still keep the goal of WP:NPOV because humor often has a tone that's over-the-top. But, whatever, the value of whatever else I choose to contribute will make it clear that banning me is a stupid thing to do should something happen that makes your warning me important. Omnifarious 06:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I have neither the power nor the desire to see you banned. I simply think you're trying to be witty in an inappropriate context. --Dgies 06:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
either way, it was totally expected, and totally hilarious. i would never come to this article, but i sure as hell came to it to see how many times it has been RV'd. I hope someone semi-protects it for at least a day. This crap is inevitable. Jeph pwnz aul! // 3R1C 03:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There's some vandalism under the reference to the comic, I'm not sure how to fix it. 149.150.236.59 20:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm too late to mention that this is on QC. I guess I can still make a shameless plug for Questionable Content though: I ♥ QC :p BigNate37(T) 04:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If you didn't notice, this talk section was started because of QC and that particular strip. Benabik 14:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, hence my comment about being too late to bring it up—it's already been mentioned. BigNate37(T) 15:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey - I'm the guy that put up the original warning. I don't really have anything new to add here, just thought it might be amusing to some of you that I posted that literally within 5 minutes of the comic going up, and when I did the bullet in the pop culture section was already there. Somebody was really on the ball. I hope the warning was helpful to someone, and that it wasn't too much of a pain for you guys that day (I haven't really been paying attention.) 24.128.152.12 08:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)greg


This entry needs amplification concerning a major portion of DeBeers sales and profits: industrial diamonds. teneriff 02:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

I'm no expert on the subject, but I know that De Beers has long been the subject of many controversies relating to conflict diamonds, labour practice and prise manipulation, both in the past and ongoing. It strikes me as very strange that the article makes almost no mention of these allegations. True or false, these issues are relevant to the article and should be dealt with accordingly. Uly 17:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree and the one section "Position on Conflict Diamonds" seems completely un-neutral. Fatla00 06:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that there is a large amount of criticism of De Beers and the article just plain doesn't reflect it. First of all, it fails to emphasize the fact (yes it is a fact) that De Beers is a Cartel which controls the vast majority of the diamond market and uses this control to fix prices.

For example:

"For the time being, the market in large, gem quality stones is dominated by a single player. De Beers is the diamond business, and controls the world diamond trade from this building in the heart of London. Over four billion dollars' worth of rough diamonds are sold here every year. An equal amount is kept on reserve. One of the ways De Beers has managed to keep the market value of diamonds high is by stockpiling some of its inventory. Many of the world's diamonds comes from DeBeers' own mines in Africa. But DeBeers has also formed strong partnerships with many other mining companies around the world. And when new sources of diamonds are discovered - in places like Siberia and most recently in Canada - De Beers moves in. Their goal is to protect the value of diamonds by controlling their release."

—Nova: The Diamond Deception

"The London-based cartel has monopolized the diamond business for 115 years, forcing out rivals by ruthlessly controlling supply."

—Wired Magazine: The New Diamond Age

"The sudden emergence of all these producers meant that De Beers, in an effort to keep prices high, was forced both to hold back a large portion of its diamonds and to purchase much of the excess supply of its new competitors--often at inflated prices. The company's market share fell from 85% to 65%, and its stockpile soared from $2.5 billion to $5 billion"
...
"Though De Beers has largely managed to sidestep this issue by having its American customers travel to London, it isn't as easy for the company to avoid trustbusters from the European Union. EU antitrust commissioner Mario Monti, the man who dismantled the proposed Sprint/MCI WorldCom merger, applied last fall for the power--along the lines of that granted by the U.S.'s Sherman Antitrust Act--to break up dominant companies by forcing them to shed assets. And since several former sightholders have complained to him about De Beers' monopolistic practices, there is widespread speculation that the company may well be a future target of his."

—Fortune Magazine: The De Beers Story: A New Cut On An Old Monopoly THE COMPANY THAT HAS RULED DIAMONDS FOR A CENTURY WANTS TO POLISH ITS IMAGE...AND DOMINATE AS NEVER BEFORE.

"Over the last seven decades, De Beers has used that stockpile -- which it maintains in London and as recently as last year was valued at $5.2 billion -- as a way to absorb excess diamonds from Africa, Russia or anywhere else in the world that might lower the cartel price of diamonds." -New York Times

The article seems to confine any mention of this to a small criticism section. The article needs a strong assertion that De Beers controls prices, in the lead paragraph as well as in the crit section. I havn't even looked into their human rights issues yet, but I suspect much could be said about that which would cast a negative light on them as well. --TexasDex 23:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synthetic Diamonds

It appears that the user from 62.6.153.251, in the Revision as of 20:15, 6 February 2007, deleted most of this section for no obvious reason. I've restored a past version of the section (not quite identally) and then, in another revision, proposed re-adding a paragraph describing De Beers' reaction in creating the "Gem Defensive Programme." --Kris Schnee 17:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

user 62.6.153.251 edited only this article(relatively many times), is it possible that this person works for De Beers? I didn't closely look at his/her contributions but the article or some parts of it seem to be written in De Beers favour instead of being neutral, however I don't know if it's because of 62.6.153.251, so someone look into it, thanks 80.109.79.136 00:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm watching this article, I noticed the new company reference to Diamond Nexus Labs [2]. This one confuses me; are the stones it's offering actually diamond? The site refers to "diamond simulants," and doesn't seem to say "these are chemically/physically identical to mined diamonds." At some point we should probably stop referring to specific manufacturers and just refer people to Synthetic diamond, once it's clear that there are several makers. I originally added the Apollo reference as evidence that there are clear gem-quality synthetic diamonds for sale. The point of including the reference isn't to advertise a specific company, but to say "Since De Beers is a major seller of mined diamonds, they've had to deal with this issue of synthetics, and this is their reaction to it." -Kris Schnee 04:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people are saying that Diamond Nexus Labs sells a diamond simulant similar to cubic zerconia, but that they deceptivly referes to it as real synthetic diamond. I remember reading there website and I assumed they were selling real synthetic diamond. I nearly bought some of there stuff, glad I didn't now I know more. There Website has been down for a few days so I cant examine their claims or the small print. I think we should be carefull. We don't want to risk promoting a company that may be deceving or ripping off their customers, so I am going to edit the article and remove the reference to diamond nexus labs. 82.2.136.40 16:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Mmeelliissssaa

[edit] Possible Hack

I have reverted the article to the version of 16:35, 27 February 2007 by 211.213.23.19. The reason for this is that the edit of 17:17, 27 February 2007, by 62.6.153.251 appears to have been an attempt to hack the article. Observe the changes: total deletion of the "Business Structure" section, alteration of the "Synthetic Diamonds" section to downplay the fact that gem-quality, clear synthetic diamonds are for sale while adding an unsourced statement that the only such gems are very small, and changes to the "Legal Issues" section to emphasize De Beers' "voluntary compliance" with laws and good citizenship. (Although that last group of changes may be valid, they deserve a POV discussion.)

These edits were major, involved deleting information, and were done by an anonymous user without explanation or even indicating the section that was edited, so I suspect they were not done in good faith. Forgive me if I have accidentally mis-attributed or misunderstood the changes, as they were difficult to track down due to the large number of anonymous unexplained edits. --Kris Schnee 05:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal issues context

 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (August 2007)

The "Legal issues" section doesn't give any context about why De Beers was having anti-trust problems or anything about the controversy about the group being a monopoly. -- Beland 01:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


I suggest someone go through the edits of user Maplecroft. I looked at his edits, which are only to this page. In nearly every instance, he changed content that was critical to De Beers. For example, he removed all usage of the word "cartel" and "guilty". This edit, for example, is particularly telling: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_Beers&diff=prev&oldid=101374542. He also made other changes, such as sections about De Beer's efforts to combat synthetic diamonds. 07:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox problem

I'm not sure if anyone else is having this problem, but the infoboxes at the top of the article are doing bad things. There are multiple solutions for this, but I don't know enough about templates to make appropriate suggestions. superlusertc 2007 August 24, 09:26 (UTC)

[edit] Frontline docu on legal issues/scarcity context

The page could use some of the context in this docu:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6186684678299366197

71.192.247.90 08:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pure corporate propaganda

This article reads like pure advertising managed by corporate image shapers from de Beers. I would suggest removing it entirely until a NPOV is found, including real discussion the monopoly, the diamond trade, global sources and de Beers' successful propaganda against so-called conflict diamonds in order to maintain itself as the sole supplier. The numbers, percentages for trade and total market worth, look fudged with a bias in favor of de Beers. The missing legal actions against de Beers cause suspicion. The controversy above over the web comic proves what some of the discussion participants openly admit: they are part of the "de Beers family." Unless wikipedia wants to advertise products like de Beers' image and a youtube tv channel, this copy needs to be put on hold, removed until the real article appears. Just reworking it implies it has some sort of credibility. Good luck with the pensions, de Beers people.

Hypatea (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

If you see problems with the article, be WP:BOLD and make some edits! SkipSmith (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Company Position on Conflict Diamonds

This section appears to be new. A recent edit removed a set of phrasings like "We believe..." and replaced them with "De Beers maintains that...", and another editor reverted those changes as vandalism.

If this section is to be here, it should be worded as something like, "The following is an official position as taken from De Beers' official materials at (reference)..." As written at the moment, the article apparently quotes something from De Beers at face value with no context about "blood diamonds" or the like, creating a POV problem. The version before this face-value quoting was better even though it needed additional references.

I also note that the "Legal Issues" section may have drifted again towards wording emphasizing De Beers' "voluntary" agreements. -Kris Schnee (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)