Jump to content

Talk:Kimberley Process Certification Scheme

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"overthrow" defined?

[edit]

The article states that one of the requirements is "that any diamond originating from the country does not finance a rebel group or other entity seeking to overthrow a UN-recognized government." Is there a precise definition of "overthrow"? If a diamond producer in the United States of America donated to the Democratic Party, a faction not in power, would that count as "seeking to overthrow" the Republican regime that controls the United States federal government? (And how would BuyBlue.org react?) What about the United States during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which successfully overthrew Saddam's government? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 14:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conformance with scheme

[edit]

Cut from intro:

All but approximately 1% to 3% of the world's trade in rough diamonds takes place in and between countries taking part in the scheme.

I replaced a 99.8% compliance claim with the above the other day. But now with all the publicity re: the Blood Diamond movie, I'd rather say nothing than get it wrong.

One P.R. aim of the movie and the KPCS itself is to counter claims that many, most or (according to one source) 100% of diamonds are "bloody".

We should not join or thwart the campaign but merely pass on verifiable reports. --Uncle Ed 21:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The World Diamond Council trade group says the process, supported by diamond-rich countries in Africa as well as the United Nations, has cut the number of blood diamonds from 3 percent to less than 1 percent of all diamonds sold today. [1]

How the certification is done

[edit]

Is there anywhere online that has a basic guideline on how to apply for a Kimberley certificate and/or how to receive a package of rough diamonds that has the certificate? I couldn't find anything online, and I'm hesitant to write it up myself if there's already a resource. --Magmagirl 21:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Fennell - needs source

[edit]

The claim that some, or all, of Theo Fennell's diamonds are sourced from conflict zones needs a reference. If it's not true, it's pretty close to libel.Bakagaijin 07:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. No source was provided and it seemed whoever wrote it was singling out that jeweler. By the way, I have read references to the Bajakajian case, very interesting! --204.246.229.169 (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Namibia

[edit]

I am glad it will be vice-chair for 2008, and chair for 2009, but does it need its own section? How about a list of past and present chairs and vice chairs for the KPCS? I know the chair this year is India, and I believe last year it was the EC -- hard to follow up because kimberleyprocess.com is down. --204.246.229.6 (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela

[edit]

Something to be taken in account: Venezuela has resigned KP facing a expulsion and a world wide boicot against Venezuelan Diamonds has been called. This because Venezuela had not done something to counter the illegal traffic of diamonds since 2003 and is the only member not accepting a visit from the organism. I hadn´t found a English source for this, however here is one in Spanish http://www.noticias24.com/actualidad/?p=15513. --ometzit<col> (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles at www.globalwitness.org, and if you go to the Process website's world map, then click the link for Venezuela, you will see correspondence directly pertaining to this issue. --204.246.229.190 (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rothschild / De Beers control of the diamond market

[edit]

Since much diamond mining causes horrendous dislocation of poor people that are forced into dormitory living by the mining companies, how does this differ from other forms of human suffering. "Conflict Diamonds" or "Blood Diamonds" are just terms invented by the diamond cartel to keep control of the diamond market.

Diamonds are not are rare as people are lead to believe, in fact the crystals can now be grown using an industrial process. Diamonds have only had real perceived value since the cutting process was developed. The small diamonds now common in relatively cheap jewellery are often cut in sweat shops, using child labour.

The Kimberley process and the World Diamond Council is just another control mechanism (as is the stigma "Conflict Diamonds") made up by the Rothschild / De Beers diamond cartel (monopoly) with the assistance of the Rockefeller United Nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.217.175 (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Citation needed" happy button for expulsion section

[edit]

Someone keeps posting this at the end of every sentence. Is that entirely necessary? Can't it be done once per paragraph, at least? All one has to do is spend about 5-10 minutes at the Kimberley Process website to read up on it, maybe another 10 at Global Witness. --204.246.229.130 (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brussels Plenary 2007

[edit]

I certainly won't argue the importance of this Plenary -- I think they are all important and relevant. Why aren't all the Plenaries since the beginning of the KPCS given a synopsis here? If that's too much, would it be significant enough to have a separate Plenary article...or to remove the Brussels section from this one? (p.s. Sometimes I feel as if I'm talking to myself here!) --Magmagirl (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly process fails to uncover torture camps at Zimbabwe diamond mines

[edit]

August 8, BBC Panorama aired an interview with victims of torture of men and rape of women at Zimbabwe mines, allegedly by police and the army. They also interviewed EU officials of the Kimberly Process, asking why they could not uncover these events and journalists could.

The EU is moving to allow Zimbabwe diamonds back on the market.

I am not skilled at editing articles on Wikipedia, so I leave this for those better able to do this.

The Panorama article is available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14377215

J.K. 71.50.25.59 (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Kimberley Process Certification Scheme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kimberley Process Certification Scheme. 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:

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) 07:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

removed some administrivia from the working procedure section Comment

[edit]

"The Participation Committee reports to the Chair on its recommendations on proposed members hoping to join the KPCS. The Selection Committee reports on its recommendations on who should be the next Vice-Chair. After a year of being Vice-Chair, the successful candidate becomes the Chair." -- do we need to know this? If someone fells we do, then fine I guess, but I felt a strong need to question this. Not sure we should even have a section on working procedure, at all. Elinruby (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kimberley Process Certification Scheme. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 14:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Statistics" section is duplicated

[edit]

The "Statistics" section repeats itself word for word. I removed one of the instances, mentioning in the edit summary that it was repeated, but the article was reverted and I was asked to give a valid reason for the removal. As this seems a very valid reason for justifying removal, I'm adding this to the talk page in hopes that an admin or more senior user will fix the issue. (Obviously I'm not much of a power user, so apologies if I inadvertently messed up some process here.) Thanks, Byron 170.200.144.21 (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kimberley_Process_Certification_Scheme&oldid=1207980873"