WT:WikiProject Human rights

Would like to Join the Project, How do I sign up. Some of the Articles I have written: Grace Lyu Collins, Indian Army atrocities in Northeast India, When Blackbirds Fly (book) Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi! You're definitely welcome to join. Just add your name [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Human_rights/Participants here]. Spookyaki (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi all, not sure where to put this. Have edited this article from the GOCE, unsure what I need to do to let you guys know its been done! KingLeonid1 (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Article 9 of the Constitution of Singapore has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

There is currently an RfC at Gaza Genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Please forgive me if this has been discussed, but I just found this project and in reading the main page noticed that the template '{{t|Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights}}' is redlinked on the mainpage. Not sure what the history is there, but wanted to flag it.

Thanks and I look forward to working with you all! i know you're a dog 19:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Human trafficking in Syria#Requested move 24 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Holocaust#Requested move 21 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. '​'​'[​[User:CanonNi]​]'​'​' (💬 • ✍️) 12:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated Diocletianic Persecution for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed Hhqrhh's recent additions of forced labor claims as top-level headings in three articles:

• {{section link|Milwaukee Tool|Forced Labor|permalink=1296820369}}, added {{date table sorting|2025-06-22|format=mdy}}.
• {{section link|Christmas lights|Forced Labor|permalink=1296821227}}, added {{date table sorting|2025-06-22|format=mdy}}.
• {{section link|Heidelberg Materials|China|permalink=1296929179}}, added {{date table sorting|2025-06-23|format=mdy}}.

All three of these sections have formatting and writing style issues (check the surprise link in the heading at Heidelberg Materials); however, I'm using this talk page just to survey the relevance for inclusion. Of the three, I think the Milwaukee Tool one is probably justifiable in some modified form. We have an article on the person making the claim and there seems to be ample coverage in reliable sources.{{cite press release |title=Human rights advocates raise concerns that Milwaukee Tool gloves are made with forced labour in a Chinese prison; incl. co. responses |publisher=Business & Human Rights Resource Centre |date=2022-12-22 |language=en |url=https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/human-rights-advocates-raise-concerns-that-milwaukee-tool-gloves-are-made-with-forced-labour-in-a-chinese-prison-incl-co-responses/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250316063803/https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/human-rights-advocates-raise-concerns-that-milwaukee-tool-gloves-are-made-with-forced-labour-in-a-chinese-prison-incl-co-responses/ |archive-date=2025-03-16 |url-status=live}} The other two, however, seem undue.

The assertion being made in the Christmas lights article is that one prison uses some amount of penal labor to manufacture the lights. There isn't anything about how many lights this is, how much of the prison's productive capacity went toward Christmas lights, or whether it's a widespread occurrence in the global supply chain for Christmas lights. While it's true that this specific prison manufactures them,{{sfnlink|Langfitt|2014|article=Christmas lights|rev=1296821227}}: "The Guangzhou Public Security Bureau, on the other hand, confirmed that inmates do assemble Christmas lights" it seems much too small-scale to be relevant in an article about Christmas lights as a whole. The sole source used is just the story of one person's detention and makes no connection to the broader economy. The scholarly literature similarly doesn't cover Christmas light manufacturing as a specific issue: it's mostly mentioned offhand as part of other labor issues in Chinese manufacturing.{{cite book |author1-last=Lieten |author1-first=G. K. |author2-last=Hindman |author2-first=Hugh D. |chapter=Child labor in China: An overview |date=2009 |language=en |title=The World of Child Labor: An Historical and Regional Survey |editor1-last=Hindman |editor1-first=Hugh D. |publisher=Routledge |publication-place=New York |isbn=978-1-315-69877-9 |oclc=671568126 |ol=8515007W |page=863 |quote=Trafficking of underage children and trafficking of children as forced laborers ({{transliteration|zh|nugong}}), though not widespread, have also been documented. In 2000, Chinese media reported that eighty-four children had been kidnapped from southern Fuizhou Province to work in coastal cities assembling Christmas lights.}} I thus don't see why it would need to be included in the Christmas lights article unless there's literature saying prison labor makes up some percent of the global market.

Finally, Heidelberg Materials is claimed to have been {{xtn|"involved in a business partnership"}} with a Chinese company, and this company is claimed to be {{xtn|"directly affiliated with"}} a prison. Notwithstanding there isn't even a connection to forced labor here, this feels like original research. There isn't anything where reliable secondary sources are directly tying Heidelberg Materials to this prison, it's just an encyclopedia editor making {{their|Hhqrhh}} own links via primary sources. Google search: {{Google|"Heidelberg Materials" "forced labor" OR "prison labor"}}

What do WikiProject Human rights participants think of this type of material being included in these articles? Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 21:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

{{block indent|em=1.6|1=Notified: Talk:Milwaukee Tool, Talk:Christmas lights, Talk:Heidelberg Materials, User talk:Hhqrhh. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 23:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)}}

:I would agree that the claim in Milwaukee Tool is specific enough to justify its inclusion, though I think generally "controversies/controversy" sections go nearer to the end of articles, and as you say, some other issues need to be fixed. The Christmas lights section does seem vague. If there was information about specific companies that engaged in those practices, then it could go on those companies' pages, but it seems like there is not. I would also agree with you regarding Heidelberg Materials: the connection is not explicit enough to merit inclusion.

:If the editor is interested, perhaps they could make an article about forced labor in Chinese prisons. It seems like there is probably sufficient material on it to meet WP:GNG. Also pinging users {{ping|Path2space|p=}} and {{ping|Zujine|p=}}, who I know work on articles pertaining to human rights in China. Spookyaki (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

::I agree the more appropriate way to address the alleged use of forced labor for a specific product is to discuss it at the company page. There are a few forced labor related articles such as Laogai (meaning forced labor for political prisoners), Slavery in China, Xinjiang internment camps or Masanjia re-education through labor camp. Thanks. Path2space (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for including me in the conversation. I think that the issue is very important to include in these articles, but I generally agree that controversies should be added to the body of an article instead of the lede. The top section should cover the definitive elements of a subject. In some cases, the controversy can be definitive, but I don't think in these specific cases that applies. I suggest the section on Milwaukee Tool should be moved to the end of the article. The placement on the other pages seems appropriate. All these sections could use an edit and more contextualization. I'm not familiar enough with the specific claims to do an edit right now, but I can tackle some of it later. —Zujine|talk 16:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}