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)

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? Relisted 23:49, 13 September 2026 (UTC), originally raised 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)

References

• Yes (summoned by bot) Replace the word. I'm not going to bother to get into NPOV, the word is simply factually inaccurate and unless its use in this context is widely used in sources, (which doesn't appear to be the case) completely wrong. If the purpose of this advertising were to increase and decrease demand at whim to suit the some nefarious objective of the company, then this word and/or 'control' might be apt. But it is almost self-evident that the purpose of the ads was to increase or stimulate or boost demand and/or the perceived desirability of the product in order to sell more and/or continue to sell as many without the price dropping. It's what ads attempt to do after all! The strategy for marketing particular (small, Russian) diamonds at one time (as covered by The Atlantic piece) could/should be covered in this section, but it neither justifies, nor is conveyed, by the word 'maniulate'.Pincrete (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Yes or optionally Yes with context I looked at the Atlantic article. While the word manipulate is not completely off, I think it is an exaggeration of what the article says. The article talks about studies done "To induce men to buy diamonds for women". "Induce" according to Merriam Webster is about "persuasion" and "influence." "Manipulation" on the other hand is "to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage". I don't think manipulation is a completely unreasonable interpretation, but it is nonetheless not the sole possible interpretation of the text, so I think using the word fails verification and could be called original research. (As a side note, a very interesting thing in the Atlantic article, which I think could be included here, is how the element of surprise is essential to the process of selling because this allows women not to feel guilty about receiving the gift. There is an element of tapping into people's deep emotions in order to get them to buy, but that doesn't mean the word manipulation is justified). Slava570 (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  To the extent that all advertising, especially aspirational advertising, attempts to manipulate, in the negative sense of the word, (ie not what an osteopath or physsiotherapist does to painful limbs), it ordinarily attempts to manipulate the feelings, beliefs and actions of the potential customer , and in this case the potential customer's spouse. Not the demand for the product, which it simply wants to increase.

  Apart from any other consideration to use the word without context (of how/why/when demand was being manipulated), is uninformative. We might as well just say the company are bad people who only want to make as much money as they can (which may be largely true of any corporation, but not very informative to say of any particular one). Pincrete (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• No (summoned by bot) From the article: Most remarkably, De Beers manipulated not just supply but demand. Since the word appears in the text, we shouldn't remove it at the request of a paid editor. Avgeekamfot (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  I must say, I don't like paid editors using this process to circumvent when a volunteer editor rejects their edit instead of engaging with the volunteer editor who responded to their edit request. Avgeekamfot (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, in which article(s)? I don't see it. Pincrete (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  Wow, I somehow ended up on a different Atlantic article which uses that language. Avgeekamfot (talk) 08:33, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment This RfC is, I presume unintentionally, conflating two unrelated issues. I do not know why my concerns around the handling of The Atlantic article are being conflated with the use of the word "manipulate" in wikivoice, which I never commented on. This was a problem at the COIN discussion I raised about WhiteHatWiki, where several editors with WhiteHatWiki summarized my concerns as being about the "manipulate" phrasing, leading to me saying (link):

WP:NPOV doesn't ask us to take highly critical pieces and strip them of any criticism. I didn't call for that criticism in Wikivoice and I never mentioned the word "manipulate", let alone in a way that implied I disagreed with the outcome at that talk page. There was concern that critical pieces were being relied on for history only, and artfully ignoring the entire context of the article cited.

The response to this from a WhiteHatWiki editor was:

Re: De Beers, the core issue at stake in the edit request was whether biased language, specifically the word "manipulate" to describe the effect of advertising on people, should be changed to a more neutral phrasing.

And, in reply:

This has absolutely nothing to do with the concern raised here. Repeatedly attempting to relitigate a different argument from the talk page does not magically make the concerns raised here about that.

I do not know how much more clear I can make it that I am not at all involved in the discussion around the use of the word "manipulate" in Wikivoice. The sum total of my engagement on this topic was to tell you I did not dispute the outcome at the talk page, which was against the use of "manipulate" in Wikivoice. I am not sure why my comment about The Atlantic article (and, by extension, that article itself) has been made central to an RfC about a phrasing in wikivoice I did not express an opinion on at all. Let alone to the extent I was mentioned by TA three times in an RfC about it and am being positioned as the opposing viewpoint. I would appreciate being left out of this discussion going forward, as I was never party to it in the first place. &#ment126;2026-34199-65 (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Yes The word suggests some degree of nefarious intent specific to this campaign. Unless there's RS that makes this explicit suggestion, I don't see an argument to retain it. JerryGraf (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  As Avgeekamfot points out above, a reliable source does explicitly use this exact language. ElKevbo (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Because a single source uses this specific word once, doesn't mean we are obliged to use it to describe De Beers entire advertising strategy - especially when done without context. The lack of context is my main disagreement with the use of the term. Performers manipulate their audiences, politicians manipulate the electorate, parents and teachers manipulate their children, but unless we give some context to how/in what sense and what way each of these actions are occurring, we might just as well say "each are bad". The use is so vague as to be pointless. I'm sure that De Beers is as guilty as any large corporation of seeking to control potential customers and their aspirations. It's what they do and why they advertise. Pincrete (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  I don't have strong feelings one way or another on whether the specific word is used. However, I think WhiteHatWiki's bad behavior needs to be addressed before we even consider making changes at their behest. Avgeekamfot (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  The article is paywalled, but my guess is that within the context of the article, the word can probably make more sense. As used here, it suggests that the way in which DeBeers uses advertising is somehow different, and more nefarious than the way it's generally used. JerryGraf (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• No Above, Avgeekamfot provides a reliable source that explicitly uses this exact language so that source should be added and the language retained. And Brucemyboy1212 should be blocked from editing in such a blatantly manipulative and promotional way for their client. ElKevbo (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• No. I agree with ElKevbo that other sourcing should instead be added to justify the use of "manipulate" if deemed necessary. Even in regards to the original article I feel "manipulate consumer demand" is not an unfair summary; if a campaign that is intended to have a "significant impact on the 'social attitudes of the public at large'" and involves "subtly altering the public's picture of the way a man courts - and wins - a woman" and planting stories about celebrities and their diamonds is not manipulative I don't know what is. And while I wouldn't necessarily go as far as ElKevbo in calling for a block, I am uncomfortable in articles being changed in this way in response to corporate demands; adding facts or correcting information is one thing, but tweaking language in favour of a client is another. Mir Novov (contribs | talk) 08:39, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Tentative Yes (replace), unless/until other sources using the same term can be found. Any advertising campaign aims to manipulate the demand. This one was spectacularly successful and we should give the reader all the details, but I'm not convinced that the Atlantic using this term once justifies its inclusion. Alaexis_¿question? 14:14, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• Administrator note Noting that I have reopened this RfC and re-added the RfC template, as a result of this AN discussion . To prevent premature archival I have re-signed the opening statement. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2026 (UTC)
• Yes, it should be replaced. All advertising, technically, is meant to manipulate consumer demand. Here, it just sounds clunky, and makes it sound like a "bad" thing. De Beers has had a spotty history, but there's nothing wrong with trying to sell your own product. Definitely in the realm of a NPOV issue.
  I quite like the replacement suggestion you've propose. It doesn't have any obvious POV, and rolls off the tongue nicely. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
• Yes, a single source using the word once does not provide sufficient weight to frame the advertising that way. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
• Yes / replace, although ideally a full RFC isn't needed for something so trivial. De Beers is one of the most evil companies in the world and one of the most effective advertisers of all time, but this is a silly, pejorative phrasing. They're successful advertisers is all. SnowFire (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
• No, it is what the sources use (and the context in which they use it makes it clear that the way DeBeers uses advertising, coupled with its control over supply, is substantially different than most advertising.) See eg. I might tweak it to say that it used advertising and its control over supply (the latter being more significant in terms of its ability to manipulate prices), and to say that that it was ultimately manipulating prices rather than demand; see eg. , but both are important and both are described as manipulation - note that the last source lists both in particular. But as far as the main question of this RFC goes the sources do describe its advertising as "manipulation", perhaps because of the extent to which DeBeers created the entire mythology of diamonds rather than just raising the profile of its own company, or perhaps because it exists in the context of that larger history of price-fixing, which, as some people above have implied, basically defines the company. (Truthfully, while the article mentions price fixing in passing, it should probably be given much more weight; it's one of the things DeBeers is most notable for. Their use of advertising is just one part of that larger context.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Aquillion: Curious what you see in the sources that makes it clear that DeBeers uses advertising in a way that is "substantially different" than most advertising. I don't see "DeBeers" in the first cit, and while the second one indeed uses the word "manipulation" it makes no comparison versus other advertising campaigns. I don't see where the neuromarketing article makes this point at all. Many thx. JerryGraf (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, the propose new line is an excellent example of how to describe the situation neutrally.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

References

References

RfC Closure

@Quetstar: Thanks for reviewing the RfC. I'm curious why you decided to close it after only 8 days. Though a clear consensus may not have been reached yet, the discussion was active and productive. I have a disclosed COI here, so I've pinged the editors who participated in the discussion. Thanks for your time.

@Pincrete: @Slava570: @Avgeekamfot: @JerryGraf: @ElKevbo: @Mir Novov: @Alaexis: @~2026-34199-65: Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes I thought it was premature. In fact I don't think I've seen any RfC closed this quickly before. JerryGraf (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I actally thought of suggesting that the nominator close this once the IP who was said to be part of the initial discussion said I do not know how much more clear I can make it that I am not at all involved in the discussion around the use of the word "manipulate" in Wikivoice. What dispute were we here to resolve? It had seemingly evaporated. I also agree with the actual close. Even if the word were justified, it isn't required, and to me, covering the context in which the word was used (a particular ad campaign to sell smaller Russian stones) was more important and informative than whether this word was employed. I don't object to the close, nor would I object to it being re-opened if others think there is some substantive point to doing so. Pincrete (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I would agree that the close is reasonable given the RfC invented an editorial conflict from the ether and presented it as two sides of a dispute that does not appear to have been ongoing. The RfC is malformed in both strongly advocating for one side and misrepresenting one "side" of the discussion entirely. Per Wikipedia:Advice on closing discussions it's a valid reason to close a discussion when Consensus cannot be evaluated, which feels applicable here due to the wildly misrepresented "oppose" side argument presented in the advocacy statement.

Above, editors saying I looked at the Atlantic article. While the word manipulate is not completely off, I think it is an exaggeration of what the article says. shows why this RfC should be closed; the RfC, in inventing an "oppose" argument, selected the evidence for a fantastical "oppose" side and declared that the question should be understood through that specific line of evidence. Before this RfC started there doesn't appear to have been any argument against removing "manipulate" in Wikivoice presented at this page, rather this entire editorial conflict appears to be invented because editors didn't remove the word fast enough for the COI editors' liking and they decided to blame that on me ("But Tedder could not have implemented the change because User:~2026-34199-65 responded").

This is crossing into WP:HARASS territory. Please stop involving me in this discussion, I was not a participant before and my only engagement here has been to point out how weird it is to frame me as the "oppose" side of an argument I never commented on except to broadly agree with you. I would appreciate being left out of this discussion going forward does not mean please ping me immediately the next time you bring this up. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

All of our time and goodwill appears to have been wasted here. Annoying, but it does not appear to reach the level of being actionable. Pincrete (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Wasting editor time appears to be an ongoing issue, per the current COIN discussion. I do think sanctions are warranted, but that this talk page probably isn't the best venue to explore why. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2026 (UTC)