Talk:De Beers/Archive 1

diamonds and jobs
I think that something on the order of 10 million people globally depend on the diamond industry for a living. I find it pretty amazing that folks are so focused on De Beers as an evil-doer. They happen to do a lot of good particularly in Africa so perhaps a section should be created on this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.102.74 (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree; the information at http://www.diamondfacts.org is especially uplifting! --204.246.229.146 (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

What is good about a group of people stealing a quarter of a continent for their own Financial exploitation.My ancestors lived on that land in relative peace for 20,000 years.To quote one of them from the 18th century who was a rebel leader and was transcribed to text "We lived very contentedly before these Dutch plunderers molested us; and why should we not do so again. Has not god given us plenty of food for our use and till the Dutch destroyed them an abundance of animals to hunt?  And will they not return and multiply, when these destroyers are gone?".The quoted ancestor died trying to liberate this country from both the germans and dutch invasions/genocides,unfortunately for him it did'nt work.Millions through the herero and nama wars,through starvation,mining,slavery and the most unimaginable cruelty were killed.I can say with all faith that their way of life was far more successful and effective before these idiots arrived and had been that way for 20,000 years.I'm sure they're pleased  with their 6.5 billion net but the genocide of many of my ancestors and the loss of my cultural history is a fracture that will never go away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.6.249 (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * While I share your sentiment on de Beers in part, you should be a bit more realistic on what you are telling here. The Dutch "VOC" started a post on land that was neither used nor claimed. It was only later, when Cape Town flourished that claims were made. What followed was merely due to dispute over cattle. And I do not really consider the tough luck stories told by English spies, eh missionaries a reliable source either. Btw. Do you have that recipe of "your ancestors" for living 20.000 years? Or is that just a figure you made up.
 * But back to de Beers, is it fair to say that they do manipulate markets by political means --41.18.172.132 (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Why Do So Many Of You So Obviously Hate De Beers?
I think it is largely because you don't understand it. Its not a cartel because it is only one company, no matter how many subsidiaries it may have. I don't know about now but in the old days De Beers would contract with outside producers to buy their output at agreed prices whatever the state of the market. This prevented many an operation from going under in the poor times. It cost De Beers millions to finance the resultant stockpile so who could begrudge them a profit when they were finally sold. They kept the producers in business (many in poor countries), they prevented gluts and wild price swings and thus maintained the price of unique product valued the world over (whatever you may think of them). As for conflict diamonds, they are all alluvial and very difficult to identify. Also they are very easy to transport and to mix with a parcel from another mine miles away.

As for using prison labour, you clearly don't know much about the organisation of a large diamond mine. A big diamond is so easy to swallow and smuggle out that the miners were kept in confined areas and subjected to intensive seaching and X-ray before being let out. In the case of Oranjemund, the CDM company town, the entire town was restricted. Without this, you revenue walks out of the door every day. At Finsch, even visitors have to leave through a turnstile which stops randomly and if you are unlucky enough to be the one inside, its off for a full body search, and I mean full. There was a small fissure mine in the old Orange Free State which was too small to operate the closed compound system. The area had more than its fair share of illicit diamond buyers and its very distinctive larger stones were often reported to have turned up in Antwerp or London.

De Beers were no angels - and what big sucessful company is - but they maintained a stable market with only gradually rising prices for the benefit of producer and consumer for years. Is that such a bad thing?Egoli (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a "cartel" in the sense that it uses political influence in favor of big diamond producers by creating bureaucratic hurdles that small producers can not handle. Furthermore that creates corruption opportunities on a large scale. --41.18.172.132 (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A completely unrestricted and unregulated method of extracting rocks from the ground that has been proven to harbor criminally dangerous working conditions and the exploitation of local populations to work in said conditions for a pittance, in order to turn over an absolutely ludicrous profit isn't a bad thing at all! and furthermore kill yourself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.203.49 (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, a very immature contributor / conspiracy theorist who clearly has never been to the countries in Africa where De Beers has operations. In fact, probably never travelled much? Someone who surely knows very very little about the diamond industry whatsoever. Go write another term paper mate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.130.120 (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh ho, you got me there. Clearly you know more about my travels than I do myself, so I must be one of those unwashed masses who has nothing better to do than protest something that is clearly a fair and completely safe business practice whose entire modus operandi revolves around the clean, safe, and sustainable practice of guuhuuuuhuhiuhhhuhuhuhuh hurf durf eat a bullet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.203.49 (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"A completely unrestricted and unregulated method of extracting rocks from the ground that has been proven to harbor criminally dangerous working conditions,etc etc."???????? Don't make me laugh. Have you visited any of the mines? Do you know the laws and regulations under which South African miners have to work? You clearly have not been on the receiving end of an enquiry into a serious underground accident. By the way, where does this allegation of criminally dangerous working conditionss come from? Egoli (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

mining being your trade probably makes you more amendable to de beers but i think aside from the big bussiness paranoia that clearly affects some of the people here, there is a legit point to be made. de beers through through clever ads and maniplation of social values has created an artificial demand for something that does not help people or make their lives better and in fact worsened conditions in many parts of the world. (please don't tell me de beers does not have dirt on its hands)

First of all I wish to PROPOSE FOR PERMANENT BAN the IP/user 71.164.203.49 for personal attacks on Egoli and who knows whom else (stating "go kill yourself" and "eat a bullet", which he did, could also amount to incitement to violence on Egoli in real life -- while no real danger is actually present, IP 71.164.203.49 NEEDS to be banned. For good. This level of aggresivity is simply incompatible with WP standars). Personally, I do not know how or where IPs can be proposed for banning. I am not new to WP, but I am unfamiliar with such administrative proceedures. If anyone knows how to do this, would you please take the appropiate action? Or direct me to where I can propose it? Secondly, Egoli, I think there is a slight conflict of interest in your editing of this page, especially if you've ever worked for DeBeers. However what you say is obviously something that ought to be included in this page if we include the opposing point of view. NPOV is our aim here, but if we have an anti-DeBeers POV, we could at leat have the pro-DeBeers POV as well to keep neutrality. Thrid, how is De Beers pronounced in SA English (I am not a native English speaker)? And what is its pronunciation in RP (British) English? Is it similar to "biers" or to "bears"? Omulurimaru (talk) 06:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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.

''I found this article to be objective and the content consistent with information I've seen on various History channel programs. I find the monopolistic practices of De Beers to be entirely possible to achieve in the modern business world. It's no more monopolistic than Microsoft forcing per processor pricing on Computer manufacturers to eliminate competition.''Pbayfla (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

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 ? 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~

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.
 * Perhaps you should then also explain why the Oppenheimers were such "outspoken opponents of Apartheid". Quite simply many of the laws "under Apartheid" were actually beneficial to workers and a restriction on wage pressing tactics of big business. That's something even Marxists had to admint --41.18.172.132 (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC).

''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, 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)

DeBeers is guilty of creating a highly artificial and overpriced market for essentially worthless stones through a stunningly successful advertising campaign. They essentially created the upscale version of Pet Rocks. This article from 1982 is still one of the best on the subject. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/198202/diamond/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shootdfi (talk • contribs) 07:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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.

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)


 * Who gives a shit? Wikipedia is not there to provide irrelevant trivia to wierd extremists. 121.45.228.201 (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2011 (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)

I don't know about that, but I found this: "He authorized the flow of diamonds to Israel's important diamond-sorting and diamond-cutting industry." on Harry Frederick Oppenheimer's page, but i can't find the original source.

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)

Thank god someone else on here noticed this. This is complete and utter bullshit. I came from http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/diamond/prologue.htm in order to find NPOV history of the De Beers company and marketing (clearly that article isn't it), and was dismayed by a total lack of a history section! Not that it wasn't there at one time, if you go here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_Beers&oldid=99909618 you can find a history of the company, something akin to what I was looking for. Not to mention almost every article about companies on WP has a history section.

This has been ongoing for two years! I only went about 100 edits back and I still saw revisions changing "Conflict Diamonds" headline to "Kimberly Process", and other insertions of "allegedly", "categorically", and other legalese to make statements seem more sterile and harder to understand.

I've added the Press Release tag, I can't believe it took this long to get up there. We need to revert this back to sometime 2007 and lock this article in order to prevent this from happening again.

Iustitia (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


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

I've gone through all the info in this article and all of it is indeed based in fact. There is a lack of a history section, but the one from 2007 that you point to is pretty biased, and would recommend the Epstein article and also De Beers and Beyond from NYU, and Mine to Mistress by Chaim Even Zohar. The Epstein book is over 26 years old though. There are probably more relevant recent facts to study on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faretrader (talk • contribs) 13:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Soapboxing about De Beers
De Beers marketed diamonds like Nike marketed trainers, or like Ford marketed cars. Whoever finds marketing so offensive, is simply not acknowledging the entire of the last century itself. Demand was created for lots of things, probably everything that you touch and own. Also diamonds had been given as gifts for engagement and otherwise for centuries and are steeped in myth, mystery and magic since pre-history. Please go and do some more thorough research on the history of diamonds, the history of marketing and successful campaigns. Statements supported by opinion-based research and soap-boxing, NPOV attitude, are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Tying De Beers to Hitler, Stalin and aparthied is further evidence of NPOV hate-posting. How can that be called encyclopedic content? Well, it simply can't.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.130.120 (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nike, Ford etc. created products and marketed them. De Beers used marketing to improve the profitibility of a cartel on a natural resource, I'm not tying them to Stalin, and I'm not a zealot, but some reference to the controversy surrounding the organization is certainly warranted in an NPOV article. I'd also point out that basing your opinion on something being "steeped in myth, mystery and magic" hardly seems to be a better justification for claimin NPOV than "opinion-based research" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.247.72 (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

prcisely, shoes and cars help people and make life better. de beers singlehandedly created the demand for jewlry diamond something that does not aid people in creating a better life, exactly the opposite.

and as for your comment about them "steeped in myth, mystery and magic since pre-history" you're a tool, diamonds had no universal value and were unknown to many cultures and civilizations

I could name at least 5 car makers off the top of my head and could go into a shoe store and find shoes by about 20 separate companies. Find me another diamond monopoly. --68.204.21.155 (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Diamonds like other precious stones have been used in jewelry for centuries. Say what you want to about De Beers's business practices, it is incredibly naive to claim that modern companies created a desire for luxury goods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.90.29 (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.  :-(  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  Big Nate 37 (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.  Big Nate 37 (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)

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"

- De Beers Halts Its Hoarding Of Diamonds

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)

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. 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

Diamond Nexus Labs sells both a diamond simulant product, (not chemically identical to diamond)in large sizes and clear, or "white" color, and also a chemically identical synthetic diamond product, but only in sizes under .5 carats. Their web-site is very clear about this, so I think its wrong to intimate they are deceiving people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.199.30 (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a good reason why this topic has vanished from the article? -Kris Schnee (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

Legal issues context
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)

I've added a little context to the Gem Diamonds settlement section, so now explains what the inital allegations were, i've also added sources to the European Competition Commission section --Kaso (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

I would have to agree that the level of sanitization on this article has left the realm of slightly annoying and is on a direct approach to preposterous and physically painful to read. It should be noted that the article in it's entirety can be used directly by De Beers in it's company collateral, considering that most of it has already been written and approved by the De Beers marketing department. Vancedecker (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Company history
Please help to expand this section, particularly info about the role of the Oppenheimers, Anglo American and the CSO.  Socrates2008 ( Talk )   10:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Article neutrality
I suspect this article may have been doctored to portray De Beers in a better light and will be monitoring it closely for any conflict of interest. Please ensure that all information added is referenced with a reliable source and that it complies with the neutral point of view guidlines.  Socrates2008 ( Talk )   13:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes and be certain that your sources have a NPOV also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bialongo (talk • contribs) 13:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Socrates your input is obviously the result of a great deal of work; however overly passioned and not in a neutral encyclopaedic tone. Not sure this is a place to write a research paper or case study on the perceptions of any particular business. Suggest completing the history section as reads like Cecil Rhodes bio and not a company history, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.88.172 (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but a IP editor with 3 references does not trump fully referenced, reliable secondary sources. A paragraph about the founder Cecil Rhodes and the early history of this company is to the point, concise and relevant.  Socrates2008 ( Talk )   12:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The tone is a bit heavy-handed and a bit grandstanding, your sources verifiable but also sensationalist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bialongo (talk • contribs) 12:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly - e.g. Economics: Principles, Problems, and Policies is a std university textbook. Wikipedia's requirement is for reliable and veriable sources.  My additions meet both criteria.    Socrates2008 ( Talk )   13:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This may come as a disappointment but your writing is very biased toward your argument, which is presented from your point of view, and not necessarily representative of a world view, or other influencing facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bialongo (talk • contribs) 13:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.
 * Your edit history shows your own bias. How are readers going to form their own opinions if you keep censoring the information in this article?  May I remind you of the WP policies around neutrality, conflict of interest, censorship and vandalism.      Socrates2008 ( Talk )   14:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Two of the primary socket puppet accounts used to censor this article have now been blocked indefinitely. I therefore encourage other editors to start expanding this article again (with appropriate references), but to be on the look out for any further attempts at censorship or vandalisation. IP contributors, please consider registering an account - see why create an account.   Socrates2008 ( Talk )   23:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Too many NPOV concerns raised, I won't check all article history at one time, yet I will check all article history and compare edits. Meanwhile I will edit Diamond, Blood diamond, Blood Diamonds (documentary), Blood Diamond (film), Lord of War film, Mining industry of Angola, Child labour in the diamond industry for social issues. Kasaalan (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of anti-De Beers statements in the edit that are factually incorrect. Several of these have citations that do not support the statements they are meant to. Just deleted one but the article is littered with other significant 'stretches' of the truth. Needs a proper review and someone to keep an eye. Sebmack (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Needs better citations
"for example during the trade slump of 1891-1892, supply was simply curtailed to maintain the price"

I can't find this anywhere in Newbury's "The Diamond Ring." Anybody care to help out in finding the page number, or perhaps the chapter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.193.200 (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here you go  Socrates2008 ( Talk )   06:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Chairmanship
Who was chairman between Rhodes and Ernest Oppenheimer? (1902-1927)   Socrates2008 ( Talk )  08:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sustainability
What on earth does that section have to do with their sustainability? A complicated and hard to read document does not prove one way or the other how they are doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.32.248.135 (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Where does the name come from?
De Beer is an Afrikaans surname. The article says nothing of the company being founded by a De Beer. So from where this name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.72.70.245 (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It says nothing of this because it wasn't founded by a De Beer. The name is a reference to the original owners of the farm Vooruitzicht on which diamonds were first discovered in Kimberley in 1871.   Socrates2008 ( Talk )  10:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reference for that so we can include it in the article?MartinezMD (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Cullinan Diamond
It says that the Cullinan diamond was teh second largest diamond ever discovered it is infact the largest ever discovered — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.153.227.210 (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Diamonds Today
DeBeers has yearly awards for the creative use of diamonds in jewelry. Anything on this?MartinezMD (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

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.

"The Kimberley process has helped restore the reputation of the industry, as well as eliminating sources of excess supply." This is self serving nonsense by De Beers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.133.50 (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

"Diamond Monopoly" needs clarification
"In 2000, the De Beers model changed,[19] due to factors such as the decision by producers in Russia, Canada and Australia, to distribute diamonds outside of the De Beers channel, thus effectively ending the monopoly.[6][18] Current major players in the diamond industry are the African producers Debswana and Namdeb, De Beers, Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton, Lev Leviev, Harry Winston, and Alrosa.[20]" (emphasis mine)

In the "Family of Companies" section, below that quote from the article, it lists among De Beers family companies both "Debswana" and "Namdeb".

It seems a little disingenuous to list those two companies as "current major players" in parallel with De Beers when they are also a member of the De Beers family of companies (and the other companies listed are apparently NOT).

Elecmahm (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * http://www.kitco.com/ind/Zimnisky/2013-06-06-A-Diamond-Market-No-Longer-Controlled-By-De-Beers.html • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 15:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Archive
Where do I find the archive of the talk page?--Michael (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added an archive box, which should have been done when archiving was started. Sadly, it looks like some previous conversations may have been lost. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 06:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on De Beers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090621004947/http://www.debeersgroup.com:80/en/Sales-and-distribution/Alrosa-Purchasing-Commitments/ to http://www.debeersgroup.com/en/Sales-and-distribution/Alrosa-Purchasing-Commitments/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091225085651/http://www.debeersgroup.com:80/en/Sales-and-distribution/Best-Practice-Principles/ to http://www.debeersgroup.com/en/Sales-and-distribution/Best-Practice-Principles/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Why is this tagged under "Metals monopolies"? Diamonds aren't a metal. 152.23.177.13 (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppenheimer Dynasty End?
It seems inaccurate to say, "In November 2011, the Oppenheimer family announced its intention to sell the entirety of its 40% stake in De Beers to Anglo American plc thereby increasing Anglo American's ownership of the company to 85%.[39] The transaction was worth £3.2 billion (US$5.1 billion) in cash and ended the Oppenheimer dynasty's 80-year ownership of De Beers." when earlier on the page it says Ernest Oppenheimer founded Anglo American plc! De Beers is still under control of an Oppenheimer-founded business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.101.8.239 (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, because no one in the Oppenheimer family wants to continue in the industry. This may not be in the article, but can be seen here. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The meaning of the word "Vooruitzicht".
The translation of the word "Vooruitzicht, is not "outlook". "Uitzicht" is translated, "Outlook". Vooruitzicht, literally translated, means "Looking to the future". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.198.30 (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The meaning of the word "Vooruitzicht".
The translation of the word "Vooruitzicht, is not "outlook". "Uitzicht" is translated, "Outlook". Vooruitzicht, literally translated, means "Looking to the future".--Yvonne Evanoff (talk) 13:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)