Jump to content

Talk:Child labour in cocoa production

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Crystalyu1214. Peer reviewers: Crystalyu1214.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Socon011.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

essay-like, not encyclopedic

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Barbara Shack 19:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)I've edited the opening. The information can be verified from the references.[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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".[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

More NPoV?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[reply]
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)[reply]
Barbara Shack 16:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Chocolate Worker Slavery This is Fred E. Foldvary's web site.[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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.[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I am not sure what you are asking me to do, and frankly, I am puzzled. --Nlu 01:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Figures

[edit]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

{{mergeto|Big chocolate}}

You can get more information on Worldwide cocoa production at the World Cocoa Foundation's website: [5] -Tobias

[edit]

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)[reply]

Picture about 19th century while article about 20th/21th century ?

[edit]
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.[reply]
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)[reply]

section 3 is an advertisement

[edit]

advertisements do not belong in wikipedia.

Benwing 02:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Confectionery

[edit]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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.

recommending move: Allegations of labor exploitation in the chocolate industry

[edit]

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)[reply]

Fair Trade

[edit]

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)[reply]

Allegations or fact?

[edit]

"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)[reply]

The article should go, or be retitled Child Slavery in Africa. The "chocolate" content is incidental and in no way does this article address the Economics of Cocoa.Rsheptak (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony's Chocolonely

[edit]

The mentioned product seems to have a Dutch website [6]. 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).[reply]

Suggestion

[edit]

How about turning this article into something like Economics of chocolate or Economics of cocoa, rather like Economics of coffee? It could discuss the overall chocolate economy in general terms, and include information on exploitative labour practices and fair-trade coffee. --Saforrest 04:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that its not really about the Economics of either Chocolate or Cocoa, its about exploitative labor practices, some of which occur in the cocoa growing industry in Africa only. So, no matter what its highly mislabeled. There's nothing in this article that is about the Economics of either Chocolate or Cocoa, on a world wide basis. This is in fact, as one other poster noted, a diatribe against a specific problem in Africa which includes, but is not limited to, the cocoa growers. It should be an article about child slavery, or exploitative labor practices, in Africa, or the Cote D'ivoire. That's all it is. Rsheptak (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

São Tomé & Príncipe - former no. 1 cocoa producer?

[edit]

It has been suggested to me (IFAD personal communication) that São Tomé and Príncipe (STP) was once the world's largest cocoa producer—1930s, maybe around 30,000 tonnes/year. Can anyone confirm this or advise a reference to global or STP historical cocoa production? Many thanks—GRM (talk) 09:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer my own question: "STP was once one of the largest producers of cocoa in the world. However, production and export levels have declined dramatically from a high of 19,019 tonnes in 1920.... Frynas et al. (2003: 35–36) attribute the success of the 'great plantations' to the use of forced labour, originally through slavery, and later through indentured labour and then various experiments with contract labour. The foreign contract labour force peaked in 1921 at 38,000." (Messer et al. in prep.; Frynas, Jedrzej George, Wood, Geoffrey and Soares de Oliviera, R.M.S. (2003) Business and Politics in São Tomé e Príncipe: From Cocoa Monoculture to Petro-State. Lusotopie 2003: 33–58.)

Strange article

[edit]

Obviously, there are "political" sensitivities with issues like child labour and slavery, but on such things the cocoa industry was built! What is this article trying to achieve? Its current title is extremely broad and warrants an extention into the monetary side of cocoa economics, not to mention back-history of the role of slavery and indentured labour in cocoa production until the early 1900s—GRM (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Its title suggests generic appeal, yet it turns into a biased list of abuses in relation to the trade. forestPIG(grunt) 17:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

[edit]

Unless there is serious opposition, I will be promoting the section title Children in cocoa production to the article title. forestPIG(grunt) 17:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, but you need to go through the "right process" before making the move...—GRM (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's no rush anyway. It should be given a week or so. forestPIG(grunt) 17:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guaranteed minimum income

[edit]

I added link GMI because if every person on earth had it, & if all people owned all things, then no one would be "forced" to buy & sell something, or someone (humans), into slavery of any kind. Stars4change (talk) 05:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 refs

[edit]

     Someone created a "2009" secn w/o any text, but the following bare URLs:

  1. http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news_digest/Child_labour_threatens_chocolate_s_sweet_image.html?siteSect=104&sid=10445408&cKey=1236942104000&ty=st
  2. http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/peopleandpower/2009/01/200912091522945303.html
  3. http://www.mallenbaker.net/csr/page.php?Story_ID=2414
  4. http://www.cocoainitiative.org/

     Don't add a 2009 section until you have some new developments to report -- at least a verifiable report that says there's been no progress. I'm about to provide properly formatted versions of those URLs, and i'll probably comment on what eligible material i see on them.
--Jerzy•t 03:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     None of the following are really able to provide anything toward a 2009 section on their own:
  1. "Child labour threatens chocolate's sweet image", swissinfo, March 12, 2009, published by Swiss Broadcasting Corporation
    The tone is that of a background article, and no events are mentioned in a context that suggests any of the information is new for 2009.
  2. "Hot chocolate", Al Jazeera, January 20, 2009
    The air date listed is Tuesday of the third full week of the year (and New Year's Day was on a Thursday); i don't know if al-J's English-speaking staff would get a long weekend for the holiday, but it seems likely that all the reporting concerns 2008 events. The "update" date in April presumably reflects minor corrections or updates, and is useless for detecting new info.
  3. "UK: Cadbury to certify Britain's most popular chocolate bar as Fairtrade", mallenbaker.net, 4 Mar 2009
    At a glance, his newsletter (a blog for our sourcing purposes) appears to be citing as source "Business Respect"'s issue 149, but BR is part of his site. Sourcing would be challenged; hunt down his "According to the Guardian newspaper" implied source & use that instead.
  4. "Welcome to the International Cocoa Initiative", International Cocoa Initiative, © 2007
    Only date it bears is copyright date of 2007
--Jerzy•t 09:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many children are working in Ivory Coast?

[edit]

This article says there are 200,000 and gives a BBC article as the source, while this article also by the BBC news says as many as 800,000 work, who is right? I know the exact numbers are probably hard to figure but what caused this discrepancy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.68.241 (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Children in cocoa production (new section)

[edit]

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.108.38 (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Children in cocoa production. 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 23:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Children in cocoa production. 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 06:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Children in cocoa production. 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 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Children in cocoa production. 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) 04:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Children in cocoa production. 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) 18:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Critique an article

[edit]

the fifth link in References does not work any more and therefore it is hard to trace the information is true or not. I think the education on child laborers are underrepresented. The exploitation of child laborers is greatly influenced by the low education. I want to update information about forced child labor and children education in Africa. In this wiki page, I saw a lot of words like slavery, forced. I want to update more information about how we define as "children slavery".

https://books.google.com/books/about/Education_in_Africa.html?id=qqtKAAAAYAAJ

https://www.du.edu/korbel/hrhw/researchdigest/slavery/africa.pdf

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/world-july-dec13-burkinafaso_07-10/

http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/chocolate.pdf

Crystalyu1214 (talk) 02:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Child labor in cocoa production. 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) 03:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who is responsible for child slavery in the cocoa fields?

[edit]

Well, to some extent, poor farmers, slave traffickers, the governments of Ghana and Ivory Coast, but no discussion about the role of the chocolate industry. But the industry has responsibility too:

Nestlé sued again over child labor in cocoa supply chain https://www.confectionerynews.com/Article/2018/02/13/Nestle-sued-again-over-child-labor-in-cocoa-supply-chain Feb 14, 2018 - Nestlé sued again for allegedly 'using child and slave labor to make chocolate' ... ADM, which alleged the firms aided and abetted child slavery in West Africa.

Your Halloween Candy's Hidden Ingredient: Child Slave Labor ... https://www.motherjones.com/food/2018/10/halloween-candy-hidden-ingredient-chocolate-child-slave-labor-nestle-mars-cargill/ Oct 31, 2018 If you’re buying last-minute Halloween candy, you might want to know about a recent ruling by the US Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit in a long-running lawsuit against Nestlé and agribusiness giant Cargill that alleges the companies aided and abetted child slavery on cocoa farms in the Ivory Coast.

Does Your Chocolate Come From Slaves? – ETHICAL UNICORN https://ethicalunicorn.com/2018/02/24/does-your-chocolate-come-from-slaves/ Feb 24, 2018 - Many children in Western Africa live in poverty, so begin working at a young age to ... supply cocoa to the international giants such as Hershey's, Mars, and Nestlé, ... eliminating child and forced labour in cocoa farms, particularly West Africa, ...

But if responsibility is assigned to the industry, Neutral POV suggests that the article also cover the corporations' attempts at improving the situation

Cocoa | Nestlé Global - Nestle https://www.nestle.com/csv/raw-materials/nestle-cocoa-plan Mar 21, 2018 - The cocoa supply chain features serious challenges, from low incomes for farmers to child labour and gender inequalities. We are tackling these issues through ...

Cocoa has a poverty problem. You can help by eating more dark ... https://newfoodeconomy.org/chocolate-farmers-ivory-coast-ghana/ Jul 7, 2018 - On this World Chocolate Day, we're sharing insights on the state of the chocolate market and ... and Nestlé expressed their collective commitment to combat child labor in cocoa growing communities in West Africa through their support of the ...

I have expanded the article to cover such issues; I hope that @David Tornheim will check it out and provide any suggestions for improvement. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Child labour in cocoa production

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Child labour in cocoa production's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "balch":

  • From Cocoa bean: Oliver Balch (20 June 2018). "Child Labour: the true cost of chocolate production". Raconteur. Retrieved 7 January 2019.
  • From Chocolate: Oliver Balch (20 June 2018). "Child labour: the true cost of chocolate production". Raconteur. Retrieved 7 January 2019.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Child_labour_in_cocoa_production&oldid=1195358885"