Talk:Labor exploitation in the chocolate industry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Labor exploitation in the chocolate industry article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] essay-like, not encyclopedic

The opening, for example, is essay-like, not encyclopedic:

Chocolate is generally seen as a harmless self-indulgence. In reality forced labour is frequently involved in its production. In the Cote d'Ivoire boys aged between 12 and 16 have been sold as slaves.

It may be true, but it has an anti-chocolate PoV. —BenFrantzDale 18:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Barbara ShackThis article was never intended to be anti-chocolate. Its anti-slavery.
I'm not even sure this article should exist at all. The title doesn't seem good. Verifiable info could go in Slavery or another appropriate place and nothing would be lost, IMO. Friday (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Barbara Shack 19:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)I've edited the opening. The information can be verified from the references.
how does that work slavery and chocolate. I expect that harvesting takes place a couple of months in a year like any crop, how do slaves spend the rest of the year? V8rik 22:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Barbara Shack 15:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)My references are strong. One is the BBC. The other is an American University website. I suppose the rest of the year the slaves are overworked in other ways.
There is no rest of the year: cocoa grows more or less all year round, with a couple of long peak harvest periods (in Cote d'Ivoire, October-March and May-August). See, for instance, [4] Tearlach 02:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no doubt slavery is an issue, i have seen other news reports myself, however these reports did not address this kind of technicalities. V8rik 18:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Barbara Shack 16:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)I've removed the POV sign. The article is no longer anti-chocolate. It's pro fairly traded chocolate. I've linked to a list of chocolate products and made sure its not anti-chocolate. I've eaten and enjoyed a great many fairly traded chocolate products from "Divine Chocolate".
To be pro fair trade is still a point of view whether you agree with it or not. The article needs a NPOV rewrite describing the anti slavery chololate campaign , who started it , who was involved , how it was answered by the chocolate industry etc. restoring POV. Lumos3 12:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
you cannot just slam a NPOV on an article suggesting more research needs to be done. I raised a critical point (harvesting window) and I received a satisfying answer. i do not think NPOV will work, I would suggest a criticism heading. However Lumos3 does not present any actual critisism so for now I am inclined to remove the NPOV again. One point of critisism, Wiki expects a proper first line with article name in bold and a proper definition and also a category (international trade?) V8rik 18:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm personally somewhat of an chocolate connosseur myself, and I am (vaguely) aware of the problems with child labor and other bad working conditions on cocoa plantations in countries with low living standards. I'm definetly sympathetic to pointing this obvious injustice out here at Wikipedia, but I'm skeptical to the scope and title of this page. Though I don't know if I would actually vote to delete if there was an AfD-nomination, I'm very critical to using this kind of title. I think the problem is better described in a more general fashion in chocolate, and which would include poor working conditions for cocoa plantation workers in general. Peter Isotalo 18:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More NPoV?

I'm tempted to mark this article NPoV again. Sentences like "Citizens are urged to write to their elected representatives ..." without attribution aren't neutral. If it were "[some organization] has urged citizens to write..." that would be different. —BenFrantzDale 17:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree . Its not this articles job to promote action itself but report what action has been called and by whom. This paragraph sound very partisan and POV. Please say who is making the calls listed. Lumos3 18:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, I added NPOV. Looking over the article, it's definately come a long way. It shouldn't take much to nutralize the PoV. —BenFrantzDale 18:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Barbara Shack 19:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Fred E. Foldvary urges people do carry out the various actions stated. I don't suppose I'm allowed to take of the POV by myself. If you Wikipedians are satisfied please remove it.
Its an improvement to state the source ,but can you give any more details like what Fred E. Foldvary's position is, or an external link to reference it. Thanks Lumos3 22:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Barbara Shack 16:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Chocolate Worker Slavery This is Fred E. Foldvary's web site.
I've created a template:chocolate and slavery template, intended to replace (what I see as) duplicative content on chocolatiers' articles. See what you think. --Nlu 16:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I still have a problem with the current article title. Adding a reference to it in the form of a standardized template will not fix this problem. Verifiable and reasonable accusations of mistreatement of the work force should be covered individually for each separate chocolatier. Standardized accusations in the form of templates is not an option. And I atill say this should be covered in either chocolate or cacao, not in a separate article that smacks of a POV fork.

Peter Isotalo 16:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Barbara Shack 15:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC) The template is a fairly reasonable compromise. The template doesn't apply to fairly traded chocolate where the cocoa is sourced to ensure no slavery is involved. I feel the template should be modified to say that.
I would have a problem with that. The problem with the fair trade label is that we have only the alleged fair trader's allegations that it is fair trade (and more importantly, the "fair trader" is implicitly accusing that others are not "fair trade"). I think that would be highly POV and inappropriate. I admit that the template can be improved (but I disagree with the assertion that it is a "standardized accusation" -- it is precisely because I felt that the previous sentences were too POV that I decided to create the template. --Nlu 17:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Nlu, I would appreciate if you acknowledged at least some of the objections I've made instead of merely ignoring them altogether and doing the exact opposite of what I asked for. Please read Wikipedia:Consensus about how decisions on content are intended to be made.
Barbara, claiming that all chocolatiers that don't comply with the standards of fair trade are equally responisble for the transgressions of other non-compliers is not even remotely NPOV. It's just plain guilt-by-association and has no factual support. If you want to add criticism to Wikipedia articles, it has to verifiable on an individual basis.
Also, please consider putting your signature after your posts. It can be very confusing to do it the other way around.
Peter Isotalo 00:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure what you are asking me to do, and frankly, I am puzzled. --Nlu 01:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm asking you not to support obvious POV. If Barbara adds material that is merely the unfounded opinions of certain fair trade organizations, and which amounts to guilt-by-association without any factual basis, then you should remove it, not try to compromise by introducting this kind of template. And articles are not talkpages. They should not refer to internal Wikipedia debates unless you use templates that state the articles NPOV of factual accuracy is in question. Again, this requires the accusations to be well-founded.
Peter Isotalo 09:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Figures

The article claims that West African nations provide "nearly 50% of world cocoa", but when I checked the article on chocolate at Nationalencyklopedin, the figure for African countries 1994-98 was 63% of world production. The figures for individual nations for the same period was 39% (!) for the Ivory Coast, 11% for Ghana and 10% each for Indonesia and Brazil. I don't doubt that the figures have changed in the past 7 years, but we really need some updated references to get exact percentages. Peter Isotalo 16:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Barbara Shack 13:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)I've removed the, marker as nobody has added to the discussion for some time. Here it is.

{{mergeto|Big chocolate}}

[edit] "Chocolate and Slavery" link

Please, keep the link out from articles that have nothing to do with it. Like Fazer and Milka. --Thorri 11:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Picture about 19th century while article about 20th/21th century ?

19th Century example of slave treatment: Back deeply scarred from whipping. 21st Century slaves suffer similarly[1][2][3]
19th Century example of slave treatment: Back deeply scarred from whipping. 21st Century slaves suffer similarly[1][2][3]

User:farialima Dec 23 2005

The picture shows treatment of slaves in the 19th century in North America, whereas the article is about 20th century Africa. Is it really the right place to put it ?

Also, the picture links to a site called "http://www.radicalthought.org/". I do not think that this is link is good: its content is obviously biased; its name does not hide its "radical" point of view, which I respect, but that has no place in an encyclopedic context.

Overall, I have the feeling that this article tends to appeal to sentiments; even if facts are true, I believe that this is not a good way to present them.

I am new to Wikipedia edits but I'd say that this article should have a "NPOV" tag.

Barbara Shack 12:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC) I agree a picture from the 21st Century would be better. I don't know how to put a new image into Wikipedia. I would appreciate it if someone would show me how to do that or put a 21st Century picture in.
If you know of some relevent images on the www post links to them here and I will see if they are eligible to be loaded. I am removing the current image as it turns the article into a campaign leaflet and not an encyclopaedia article on the topic. Lumos3 17:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] section 3 is an advertisement

advertisements do not belong in wikipedia.

Benwing 02:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Confectionery

What in the world possessed people to think this belongs in Category:Confectionery? JIP | Talk 08:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This article belongs in Category:Chocolate industry, or at least Category:Chocolate. The former because slavery as labour is used to keep profits as high as possible by some in the commerical production of chocolate (the chocolate industry), or at least the latter because this article is directly related to the subject of chocolate. Kurieeto 15:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Every other article in Category:Chocolate and Category:Chocolate industry is about chocolate itself, not about matters connected with chocolate. Because of this, I feel that this article feels out of place in either of them. JIP | Talk 14:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Quoting from Wikipedia:Category, "A category is a list page which serves to aid browsing of related topics". I believe that it's indisputable that this article, chocolate and slavery, is a related topic of chocolate, and therefore at least would belong in Category:Chocolate. I would maintain that chocolate and slavery is also a related topic of the subject of commercial production of chocolate for profit (the chocolate industry), but would welcome discussion on the matter. In my view, based on Wikipedia:Category, to not have this article in either of the above categories, it would have to be successfully argued that chocolate and slavery is not a related topic of either category. Kurieeto 15:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the chocolate industry cat is best. Putting it in the chocolate cat is unnecessary and potentially confusing. BrokenSegue 16:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


Where is says: "Mars buy free trade cocoa as a matter of policy" does this mean they don't go out of their way specifically to obtain fairly traded chocolate? It is a little unclear.

[edit] recommending move: Allegations of labor exploitation in the chocolate industry

I feel like a lot of POV problems could begin to be solved by a move. "Labor exploitation" is much less of a hot-button term than "slavery", and it should be immediately be apparent that these are allegations and not universally accepted facts. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 13:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Trade

If the claims are that slavery in the traditional sense at least is only being used to produce chocolate in Africa, would not that indicate that chocolate not certified fair trade but not from Africa--single origin chocolates and Latin American companies such as El Rey and Santander which only use beans from their own country--would not involve African slavery? I'm aware that these may use other "unfair labor practices" but then, would that not be another topic, maybe exploitation in the chocolate industry? --71.192.116.43 07:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations or fact?

"it should be immediately be apparent that these are allegations and not universally accepted facts..." The article itself says otherwise, repeatedly, e.g.:

  • " it is documented that boys aged between 12 and 16 have been sold as slaves..."
  • "Most slaves are impoverished young men and boys from Benin, Togo, and Mali."
  • "Children are generally found traveling or begging and lured to the Ivory Coast, where they are sold."
  • "Traffickers promise them paid work, housing, and education; instead, they are forced to labour and undergo severe abuse working on the cacao farms."
  • "A 1998 report from UNICEF, the United Nations Children's Fund, concluded that some Ivory Coast farmers use enslaved children, many of them from the poorer neighboring countries of Mali, Burkina Faso, Benin and Togo."
  • "A report by the International Labour Organization based in Geneva, Switzerland, also found that trafficking in children is widespread in West Africa."

And it goes on and on. Either slavery actually exists, or most of the article needs to be gutted and rewritten from scratch. I think the former is preferable, as the connection between slavery and chocolate seems extremely well documented. As such, I'm moving the article to remove the word "allegations" from the title, and editing the first sentence to remove the word "allegedly". -MichaelBluejay 17:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony's Chocolonely

The mentioned product seems to have a Dutch website [5]. Is this link allowed as a reference or an external link? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.109.22.148 (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/a/b/Talk%7ELabor_exploitation_in_the_chocolate_industry_8fb4.html"