Talk:De Beers

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. superluser_tc 2007 August 24, 09:26 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on De Beers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150104070535/http://www.debswana.com:80/Pages/Welcome.aspx to http://www.debswana.com/Pages/Welcome.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Jewish

What is the point of mentioning that Oppenheimer was Jewish? Neither religion nor ethnicity of any other player in the De Beers saga is mentioned. How do we explain this? Why is it noteworthy? Ordinarily I fully understand the motivation of those identifying someone as Jewish out of context. I think the same is true here. Removed. Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Prison Labour

The article does not mention the convict labour used by de beers, starting in 1884. I checked the archived discussion, and saw some mention of it. As far as I can understand it was taken down, most probably due to the questionable 10000 number. I think it is an important topic to be mentioned hence I found a trustworthy publication on the topic: "Convict labour, industrialists and the state in the US South and South Africa, 1870–1930" William H. Worger 2006 Journal of Southern African Studies Vol 30, Pages 63-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305707042000223942 Relevant part from the paper:

At much the same time that corporations in Alabama were largely monopolising the use of state and county prisoners for work in Birmingham mines, Cecil Rhodes was achieving an even tighter monopoly in the Cape Colony. During 1884 and 1885, using prison workers provided free of charge by the colonial administration, De Beers Consolidated Mines constructed a private prison large enough to house 300 inmates. Rhodes entered into negotiations with the Cape Colony government (of which he was an elected member) to secure ‘from time to time ... such able-bodied long sentenced native prisoners as they [De Beers] may require’. Agreement was reached on a two-year contract at the beginning of 1886. De Beers would be supplied with as many convicts as the company could accommodate so long as the number did not exceed 300, all to be chosen from African males whose sentences still had at least three months to run upon incarceration in the station. The company would not have to pay any fee for the convicts, but would have to bear all the costs of maintenance and surveillance. The civil commissioner for Kimberley (the senior civil servant), E. A. Judge, considered the contract of benefit to all involved. The prisoners would be ‘better housed, better fed, and better clad’ than the inmates of the Kimberley jail, De Beers would get reliable employees whose persons could be thoroughly searched to ensure that no diamonds were stolen, and the government would save ‘the expense of some 220 prisoners’, which was the average number incarcerated in the convict station during the first six months of 1886. With the contract signed on 1 January, the convict station opened immediately thereafter. The number of incarcerated rose steadily, averaging closer to 300 in 1887 and rising higher thereafter when De Beers entered into a new two-year contract in 1888 for an average of up to 400 convicts at any one time. Periodic renewals of the contract led to even greater increases in inmates with the daily average reaching over 1,000 by the late 1890s.

The references presented for this paragraph are from first-hand sources i.e. "the Memorandum of Agreement between De Beers and the colonial government" and the "superintendent reports of the De Beers Convict Station." I wanted to put the details here before editing because I am a non-user and there might be other considerations. But I honestly believe that there should be a section about this also using other sources which exist in the form of books. e.g. Stones of Contention: A History of Africa’s Diamonds, Todd Cleveland; South Africa's City of Diamonds: Mine Workers and Monopoly Capitalism in Kimberley, 1867-1895, William H. Worger 85.53.252.8 (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Request Edits for January 2026

I have some suggestions for improving this page. I have a WP:COI as a consultant for WhiteHatWiki, which was hired by the subject of this article. Thanks.

1. In the History section, beneath the Oppenheimer control subsection, please replace the third sentence of the first paragraph:

Change from:

Its owner refused to join the De Beers cartel.

Change to:

Its owner, Thomas Cullinan, refused to join the De Beers cartel.

Reason: Fixing the unsupported attribution notated in the sentence by adding name of owner, which is supported by source 30. I’ve removed source 29 because it does not support any aspect of the sentence.

2. In the History section, beneath the 21st-century changes, please remove the fifth paragraph:

Change from:

In 2020, the De Beers Company released a statement of a values change, promising the world that it is committed to not using slave labor within the company.

Reason: First, this is a WP: Primary source, which is not appropriate from a topic requiring interpretation. Next, the paragraph gives the impression that De Beers released a statement on this topic for the first time in 2020. De Beers has published such statements annually since the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was passed: . Singling out one such statement from 2020 is misleading especially because this is a Primary. I could not find secondary sources about the Act that mention De Beers. At present, there are 32,995 companies listed on the modern slavery statement registry: .

3. In the History section, beneath the Marketing subsection, please rewrite the fifth paragraph:

Change from:

In May 2025, De Beers announced the discontinuation of the Lightbox brand, citing challenges in competing with the increasingly low prices of lab-grown diamonds and shifting market dynamics.

Change to:

In May 2025, De Beers announced the discontinuation of the Lightbox brand as part of cost-cutting measures.

Reason: The existing sentence isn’t supported by the source. The article reports that De Beers confirmed it would shut down Lightbox as part of cost-cutting measures, but it does not say the company cited challenges related to pricing or market dynamics. That inference is made by the journalist indirectly (it happened “at a time when…” such and such is happening), not a statement by the company, as the Wikipedia page incorrectly states.

4. In the Operations section, beneath the De Beers London subsection, please replace the Institute of Diamonds sub subsection:

Change from:

The International Institute of Diamond Grading & Research (IIDGR) was set up by De Beers in 2008, with the aim of providing a range of services and equipment in the field of diamond verification. It is based in London, Antwerp and, from 2015, in Surat, India. The IIDGR works only on diamonds that meet the requirements of the United Nations' World Diamond Council Kimberley Process.

Change to:

Originally founded as The International Institute of Diamond Grading & Research (IIDGR) in 2008, the Institute of Diamonds (IoD) provides grading and verification diamond education courses. As of 2019, the IoD had campuses in London, Antwerp and Surat, India.

Reason: Rewriting to provide the needed citation and updating to reflect the name change of the IIDGR. I could not find an independent source to support information about the Kimberley Process, so have removed.

5. In the History section, beneath the Corporate affairs subsection section, please rewrite the third paragraph:

Change from:

In May 2018, De Beers's group company Element Six launched a lab-grown diamond brand to sell jewellery directly to consumers.

Change to:

In May 2018, De Beers's group introduced a brand called Lightbox Jewelry to sell lab-grown diamonds that were produced in partnership with Element Six, a subsidiary of De Beers.

Reason: The existing sentence isn’t supported by the source. I’ve rewritten according to what can be verified by the CNBC article, which states: “...a new De Beers firm called Lightbox Jewelry will sell laboratory-made diamonds… The lab-made versions marketed by De Beers will come from an exclusive partnership with United Kingdom-based Element Six…” I have added a NYT source to clarify that Element Six is a De Beers subsidiary.

Thank you for your review. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

There's obviously a lot of motivation for these changes. I'll just look at (3), the Lightbox closure. You're concerned there's no actual link between decreasing lab prices and the closure. Here's a source that directly quotes De Beers: "The persistently declining value of lab-grown diamonds in jewelry underscores the growing differentiation between these factory-made products and natural diamonds... Overall, we expect both the cost and price of lab-grown diamonds to fall further in the jewelry sector". The preceding article lends support to it as well, as does this JCK editorial and this one. Even this literal press release from De Beers seems to back that up. I think I'll go edit that section now. tedder (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

You're doing original research WP:OR. None of the sources you added say that De Beers sold Lightbox "because the company was choosing to compete in the luxury Veblen good space of mined diamonds." It's speculation and should not be stated as true in the voice of Wikipedia. Closing a company could have a rationale completely different than concurrent market conditions. You've also added a WP:SYNTH which makes it difficult to determine which sentences are meant to be supported by which sources. And of the sources you added, two are dead links. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

You're right, "choosing" implies action. I'll adjust that. You'll have to itemize the dead links- I didn't add any that are dead, though they may be paywalled. tedder (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

If "choosing" implies action, so too does "positioning itself." But that's not really the issue. The problem is still WP:OR. You've added: "With prices of lab-grown diamonds continuing to fall, De Beers announced the discontinuation of the Lightbox brand in May 2025, positioning itself in the luxury Veblen good space of mined diamonds." This is an editorial inference about De Beers’ intent, built by combining lab grown prices falling; Lightbox shutting down; and the concept of “Veblen goods.” You have not cited a source that can support this conclusion. You've also introduced vague wording ("continuing to fall") and jargon ('luxury Veblen good space"). Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I gave five links showing the link between Lightbox and falling lab grown prices above. There are quotes in the ref for Verblen.

I'm comfortable with it. I've left the "edit request" template above so other editors will come by and look at this. tedder (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving it for others to consider as well. But "five links showing the link between X and Y" is a hallmark of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

The links have literal quotes from the CEO making that connection. tedder (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Brucemyboy1212 courtesy ping

Article by Forbes that Lightbox was closed that specifically cites the sinking cost of lab-grown diamonds as a reason. I've added the linked source to article. Not really much else to say, the current version of that section should stay up. Closing the COI ER as I addressed all the other requested changes. Feel free to make another COI ER! - Otherwise (Talk?) 02:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Request 1) Done Non controversial name change and sourced
• Request 2) Partly done: Instead of removing the segment, I expanded it, explaining its relation to the UK Modern Slavery act and sourced it with reliable sources. Also explained it isnt the only press release of its kind.
• Request 3) Not done: See thread above for details.
• Request 4) Partly done: The source you linked makes it clear that the IIDGR rebranded as the De Beers Industrial Services with IoD being a sub group. updated content to that end.
• Request 5) Partly done: Content is already mentioned earlier in the article so I just moved relevant info to the earlier mention and deleted the rest.

- Otherwise (Talk?) 02:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Request Edits for February 2026

I have a few more suggestions for updating and improving this page. I have disclosed my WP:COI as a consultant for WhiteHatWiki, which was hired by the subject of this article.

1. In the History section, under the Marketing subsection, please rewrite the first sentence of the first paragraph:

Change from:

De Beers successfully advertised diamonds to manipulate consumer demand. One of the most effective marketing strategies has been the marketing of diamonds as a symbol of love and commitment.

Change to:

According to a 1982 article in The Atlantic, amid declining diamond sales in the late 1930s, De Beers worked with advertising agency N. W. Ayer to launch marketing campaigns that positioned diamonds as essential symbols of love and commitment in order to sustain demand.

Reason: The current wording uses biased, highly subjective language to describe ordinary advertising (“manipulate consumer demand” “one of the most effective marketing strategies”) in the voice of Wikipedia and violates WP:NPOV. The suggested replacement removes non-neutral wording and provides context around the advertising campaign as it was interpreted by the source, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

2. In the History section, under the Marketing subsection, please add the following as the new fifth paragraph:

In 2025, De Beers was among the initial signatories to the Luanda Accord, an agreement among diamond-producing countries and industry organizations to establish a collective fund to support global marketing of natural diamonds through the Natural Diamond Council.

Reason: Details about the marketing agreement have been reported by multiple industry-focused media sources which are significant because of the scope of the multi-national cooperation.

3. In the Operations section, please replace the second sentence of the third paragraph:

Change from:

It is 74% owned by De Beers and 26% by a board-based black economic empowerment partner, Ponahalo Investments. There are two mines – Venetia and Voorspoed.

Change to:

It is 74% owned by De Beers and 26% by a South African black-owned company, Ponahalo Investment Holdings. De Beers shut down production at the Voorspoed mine in 2018; the Venetia mine remained operational as of 2026.

Reason: Adding a citation to verify the information and clarifying language about ownership of Ponahalo. Adding updated information about the status of the Voorspoed and Venetia mines.

4. In the Operations section, please add the following to become the fifth sentence of the fourth paragraph:

De Beers closed the Snap Lake mine in 2017, and closed the Victor mine in 2019.

Reason: Adding up-to-date information about the operational status of the mines.

5. In the Operations section, please replace the seventh paragraph:

Change from:

De Beers employs more than 30,000 people on five continents, with more than 17,000 employees in Africa. Almost 8,000 people are employed in Botswana, around 6,200 in South Africa, nearly 2,900 in Namibia, some 1,260 in Canada and about 320 in exploration.

Change to:

As of 2023, De Beers employed approximately 20,000 people.

Reason: The paragraph contains no citations and I couldn’t find an independent source to support the information. The suggested replacement is based on reporting in a reputable media source.

Thanks for reviewing. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Discussing the first one:

before: successfully advertised diamonds to manipulate consumer demand. One of the most effective marketing strategies

after: launch marketing campaigns that positioned diamonds as essential symbols .. to sustain demand.

Agree that it's biased language before, "manipulate" carries connotation. I'm surprised you want to understate it quite as much, but that's okay. I am against using biased language like "essential symbols", that implies that Wikipedia values them as essential symbols. The Atlantic article (and book, IIRC) is really talking about shifting so "women were no longer to be led to equate the status and emotional commitment to an engagement with the sheer size of the diamond" and the wild success that De Beers had at that. We might want to include the 2015 Atlantic piece, "How an Ad Campaign Invented the Diamond Engagement Ring" for more context, and also tie it to "a diamond is forever" which is mentioned in the Marketing section. Let me know if you are aware of big-picture articles like these.

And the second one, is there coverage of the Luanda Accord outside of industry pieces? It appears De Beers is proud of this new effort but even National Diamond Council is lacking in coverage. (oh, is that actually the African Diamond Producers Association? why doesn't that article mention the new name and the accord?)

Adding: "Prior to this agreement, the NDC was funded almost entirely by De Beers" tedder (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@Tedder: Thanks for weighing in. We both seem to agree that “manipulate” carries a biased connotation, so I’ve adjusted the language and incorporated the source you suggested. I’ve also expanded the paragraph to reflect reporting in the 1982 Atlantic article about the marketing campaigns centered around smaller diamonds. What do you think of this?

According to a 2015 article in The Atlantic, in the first half of the 20th century De Beers shaped the demand for diamonds through marketing, including its 1938 decision to hire N. W. Ayer to improve the image of diamonds in the United States. The magazine also reported in a 1982 article that, after De Beers agreed to market large quantities of small Soviet diamonds in the 1960s, N. W. Ayer shifted its advertising strategy to emphasize quality over size, giving smaller stones “the same emotional importance as larger stones.” According to the article, the campaign helped promote diamonds as symbols of romance and commitment, emphasizing the association between diamond rings and marriage.

Regarding your feedback on the Luanda Accord, I found Reuters coverage describing the accord as an agreement among diamond-producing countries and firms to create a collective marketing fund for natural diamonds. Reuters also covered South Africa’s decision to join the initiative and referenced De Beers’s involvement. How do you feel about the updated wording and sources?

In 2025, De Beers was among the initial signatories to the Luanda Accord, an agreement among leading African diamond-producing nations and trade bodies to promote natural diamonds globally, an initiative to foster a rebound in demand for natural diamonds.

Thanks for looking this over. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I've already raised your firm at WP:COIN so I won't make any edits here, but there is absolutely no need to mention the Luanda accord with a WP:TRADES source, and a passing mention in Reuters doesn't change what the Luanda Accord actually is; marketing.

That 1982 Atlantic article is a serious piece of investigative journalism that is being summarized as a history of De Beers' advertising of diamonds and it cannot be relied on while ignoring the entire thesis of the article; that diamond values are arbitrary and artificial. That article is being seriously sanitized for use as a source in a way I don't understand.

an initiative to foster a rebound in demand for natural diamonds.

They were artificially creating demand from nothing in the midst of a decline of diamonds as a status symbol. We don't need to softball that history for readers. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Added (3) to the article and will expand slightly. tedder (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

(4) appears to be done in line for each mine in the current paragraph with the current text indicating that both mines are closed. Will leave as-is.

(5)  Done. As this appears to have answers to all of the requests, I am marking this as answered. Spencer^T•C 18:40, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

RfC on the use of the word "manipulate" to describe advertising

Should the word “manipulate” be replaced when describing the advertising campaigns of De Beers? Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Yes
• Yes, but with context
• No

Poster’s rationale: I first brought this as an “Edit Request” as I work for WhiteHatWiki, which was hired by De Beers. User:Tedder reviewed the request and said “Agree that it's biased language before, "manipulate" carries connotation.” But Tedder could not have implemented the change because User:~2026-34199-65 responded, saying the proposed replacement was “soft balling” and could not be made because the “1982 Atlantic article is a serious piece of investigative journalism that is being summarized as a history of De Beers' advertising of diamonds and it cannot be relied on while ignoring the entire thesis of the article; that diamond values are arbitrary and artificial”

The sentences that were the subject of the edit request, found in De Beers#Marketing, read as follows: De Beers successfully advertised diamonds to manipulate consumer demand. One of the most effective marketing strategies has been the marketing of diamonds as a symbol of love and commitment. Please note my disclosed WP:COI as a consultant with WhiteHatWiki.

There are two issues: first, “manipulate” violates WP: NPOV and is an interpretation not even found in The Atlantic article; second, as a matter of policy, User:~2026-34199-65 is incorrect that correcting an NPOV violation in a sentence about advertising requires that there must also be a summary of a different topic - diamond pricing - discussed elsewhere in the 9875 word article. The IP editor’s full argument is at Talk:De Beers#Request Edits for February 2026

While the 1982 Atlantic article clearly supports the claim that De Beers used advertising and public-relations campaigns in the 1930s to stimulate demand for diamonds, the same is true of all advertising. “Manipulate” is an interpretive and loaded interpretation of a De Beers ad campaign to associate diamonds with love. The word implies that those actions were deceptive or coercive. My proposed replacement at Talk:De Beers#Request Edits for February 2026, using the exact same source, is neutral and even more detailed, not “soft balling."

Here is that suggestion (with slightly modified wording): ”According to a 1982 article in The Atlantic, amid declining diamond sales in the late 1930s, De Beers worked with advertising agency N. W. Ayer to launch marketing campaigns that positioned diamonds as essential symbols of love and commitment in order to increase demand.

Secondly, the original editor did not violate Wikipedia policy by focusing only on ad practices in the “Marketing” subsection, nor did I in using the same source to ask for an edit to the same language; User:~2026-34199-65’s insistence that the entire 10,000 word source on other topics must be summarized in order to cite it for another purpose is incorrect and inappropriate for a subsection on marketing. I would note that the company’s history, from the 19th century through the 1980s, is extensively covered elsewhere on the page. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2026 (UTC)