Talk:Blood diamond/Archive 2

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.

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

Yes, this article is rather dubious. It uncritically espouses the indutry as self-regulating. Where it most betrays itself is in its insistence of this, as where the article states that these standards (of whatever worth) were put forward by the diamond producing nations themselves. It clearly gives the impression that it is seeking to reassure us as much as possible - not only are the rules in place, but they were instigated organically and voluntarily. Which is pants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.17.159 (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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? BJ Talk 07:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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)


 * The truth is that DeBeers had always done everything it could to limit the supply of diamonds on the world market.

That results in bigger profits for them. 64.169.5.46 (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

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.

There seems to be no discussion anywhere of the DeBeers diamond cartel and its attempts to control the diamond business for decades. What does the term "illegal diamond," really mean? One that isn't sold through the DeBeers cartel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shootdfi (talk • contribs) 06:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

This line:

A conflict-free diamond is a diamond whose profits are not used to fund wars and which is produced and mined under unethical conditions

should be corrected to say: under ETHICAL conditions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.120.253 (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

Beny Sofer, Tri-star, Canadia Mark, Canada Mark
I have removed all of the above as unsourced. The claims made are quite important, and some libellous if they cannot be backed up by evidence. The problem is the lack of reliable sources, not the content per se.Babakathy (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

what is a blood dimond?
A Blood Dimond is a conlfict/ war over dimonds and people are killed over it because its very valuable.-Chompyy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.162.225 (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

'Denial' section of questionable relevance
The fact that Akon owns a diamond mine and made a comment about the non-existence of conflict diamonds seems irrelevant to this article. If there is a demonstrated trend of denying the existence of conflict diamonds, that would be an important component of this article. I find this very short sentence section to be a distraction, more suitable for Entertainment Weekly than Wikipedia. I recommend removing it. JohnSS03 (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's the opinion of one (uninformed) man presented once (as far as I can tell). This section should come out. Focomoso (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. Focomoso (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Redirect
I think Conflick diamond can be redirected to this article.-- ※ Ingrid1996  ※  Talk  ※  13:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Conflict diamond, maybe?  Socrates2008 ( Talk )   13:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed two sections
Two sections of this article were removed today for reasons of POV. The first was on monitoring. This sub-topic probably should be in the article, but written from a NPOV stance with verifiable sources. Non of it was salvageable. The second section was the conflict free section. The crux of the section was a narrow definition of 'Conflict diamond' formed by a purported council named Conflict Free Diamond Council. This council does not show up on any non-profit searches, and furthermore it purports to be a 'council' which would imply a group of people or organisations. This is not evident. The phone number is listed as an unpublished phone #, and not to an official organisation. This all points to this group being illegitimate, and/or possibly a front for pro-Canadian diamond promotional group, either by an individual or small company. Until the independence of this organisation is proven, it's supposed neutrality and it's notability are completely at odds with WP.SauliH (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Article much improved, still some uncited claims to track down. Babakathy (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

See also "Diamonds as an Investment"?
What tangential relationship do these two subjects have with one another, apart from Diamond? SauliH (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed, no connection really. Babakathy (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

isn't "conflict diamond" a better title?
The article opens with the first bold term being "conflict diamond," with "blood diamond" being one of the alternate terms listed in parentheses that follow; and yet "blood diamond" is the title of the article. I'm not disputing that these diamonds are widely termed "blood diamonds" but they are just as often termed "conflict diamonds" as far as I've heard them mentioned; and as much as I think "blood diamond" is a wholly appropriate term, it's also admittedly something of a loaded term with obviously odious connotations (like "death squad" or "terrorism" -- terms with very specific definition in official politics, that nonetheless carry much connotation). Does anyone support renaming the article and creating a redirect for "blood diamond"? If not, I'm fine with keeping it as is, just thought I'd point all this out. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, I also think the title should be changed to "conflict diamond" as well. In addition to "blood diamond" being a "loaded" term, I feel that "conflict diamond" is a better descriptor of the item in question. A "conflict diamond", in my opinion, is a much more clearly identifiable name, as it is obvious to the circumstances surrounding it. On a much smaller note it would help to distinguish it from the movie. -Noha307 (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

First Sentence
"...these diamonds caused rebellious groups..."

Anyone who knows what that is supposed to mean should probably try making it readable. Arcanicus (talk) 03:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Blood Phones
Hello, I'm considering creating a section on Blood Phones. Blood phones are similar to blood diamonds/conflict diamonds because they refer to the minerals mined in war zones, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, which are in smartphones and other electronic devices. Currently, there are grass-root movements, such as one led by Enough Project, that are urging companies such as Apple, Intel, etc., to use conflict free minerals and not support further violence.Brh04 (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of "Central African Republic"
I [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blood_diamond&diff=550900098&oldid=550754897 removed] the entire section. Until the last 2 edits this section was stable but it had been tagged as "citation needed" for months. Recent edits added another sentence that needs a citation. Since the section, like many parts of this article, is accusing people of "bad behavior" or at least stating that certain groups of people did certain things, references are required. It's not quite the same as a WP:Biographies of living persons issue, but the concept is the same: It's better to omit this information than to leave possibly-incorrect, non-verified information in the article. Anyone reading this is encouraged to do a proper, neutral, verified write-up of what happened or is happening in the Central African Republic vis-a-vis blood (conflict) diamonds. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  00:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)