Talk:Human trafficking in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

North Koreans in California?

"Asian apartment massage parlors exist all over the USA, especially in Silicon Valley, California. Many of the prostitutes are females from North Korea, either brought illegally across the borders of Mexico and Canada, or with the use of fake student visas"

North Korean women being used in California sex trafficking seems implausible...source please? 76.90.5.97 (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The occurrence itself isn't implausible, but the wording above would require citation, because of the implied quantification of the demographics. Specifically "all over the USA," "especially in..." The second sentence doesn't necessarily have this problem, though it is essentially meaningless. "Many" may be in that specific demographic, but if the previous statement of ubiquity is true, then quite a few of the demographic cohorts would have "many" members. --120.32.144.151 (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Highly subjective

This article is littered with propagandistic appeals to emotion such as "One cannot discount the fear that victims live under. They usually have been physically and sexually assaulted, and the emotion-battering involved in psychological control is constant. A frequent and effective hold that traffickers have over victims is to threaten to harm family members, sometimes even the children of the victims. Even after a woman or girl is safe herself, her family is still at risk. That prevents many victims from admitting that they are victims and cooperating with police. ..."

There is also ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the view that the human trafficking hysteria has all the characteristics of a moral panic and closely resembles the "white slavery" hysteria of 100 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OctoberAlpi (talk • contribs) 16:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't know about any type of "human trafficking hysteria" much less human trafficking in the U.S. until I read this article. So are you saying it doesn't happen? That's unlikely. Does concern about it qualify as "hysteria"? Hysteria is a perjorative. And that someone who lives in this state would be living in fear does not sound like propaganda, but logical. Seems to me you "doth protest too much". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.105.146 (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Revisions to Neutralize and Contribute New Information to Article

I agree that this article is highly subjective as it currently stands. I, therefore, propose to make vast changes in the structure of this article because human trafficking in the United States is an extremely import topic—especially given its recent forthcoming to the center stage of political debate. It is, therefore, imperative to present all of the facts with regard to human trafficking in the United States because it is imperative for people to understand the complex issues surrounding trafficking so that they may influence policy and other forms of aid in such a way that it encompasses a fully informed view of human trafficking in the United States. The news articles present human trafficking in the United States by one definition—trafficking that is induced by force. Indeed, there are views in the United States that believe that prostitution is naturally equated with human trafficking. They believe that prostitution is not a choice that women make but is a form of slavery even if the women who are prostitutes do not themselves believes they are enslaved. The idea in such a case is that they are unaware of their servitude. But, in opposition to those views also exist views that prostitution is a viable means for gainful employment that has become criminalized. And, while it may include illegal migrant workers, it should not be immediately equated with sex trafficking. Rather, they believe that prostitution has its own set of issues and points of exploitation, but that grouping all sex work with human trafficking actually exacerbates their exploitation because it does not provide them with legitimacy and rights as money earning citizens.

In support of the development of this debate surrounding human trafficking in the United States, I plan to elaborate on the history of human trafficking in the United States. Briefly, the human trafficking, in the modern sense of the term, began after the abolition of slavery and the criminalization of prostitution. Lastly, I will discuss both regional and national legislation against human trafficking. My current understanding of such legislation is that some of the state and local laws function to criminalize human trafficking while others work to provide aid to the victims of trafficking. However, there is a broad range of these state laws, which makes their examination complicated. In addition, there is a broad range with which these laws are enforced in different areas adding more convolution and complexity. Any support or advice of how to best approach this area of revision is especially welcome.

I hope to add a more scholarly point of view on this topic; I am very open to suggestions as to how to improve upon neutralizing this article. I appreciate comments and feedback and look forward to working more on this subject. Cyoung530 (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

March 21, 2012, edits

I did some edits just before posting for this topic: I deleted world-relevant content from the lede (the article is about the U.S. only), drug-relevant content from the lede (it's not in the body and may be world-relevant), redundancies from a section heading and sentences (e.g., "in the US" is a redundancy in an article about practices in the U.S.), a comma, blank lines, a period (of two in a row), and spaces; moved a reference to after a sentence period; clarified sentences syntactically and a government agency name; added spaces, commas, and an article; decapitalized two phrases; in two cases combined two sentences so the second wouldn't start with digits; hyphenated; corrected a description of Washington, D.C., as a state (it's not), an apostrophe and quotation marks to Wikipedia's style (straight), and a tense for a date that passed; reformatted references; abbreviated "United States" after a first reference; and made abbreviations for the U.S. consistent. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

content needing edits

Several issues are open to editing. I don't know how they should be edited. This need not conflict with anyone else's plans to edit the article, which can get priority as apropos.

"Domestic servitude claims 27% of people in slavery, agriculture 10%, and other occupations 17%." This is unclear because it leaves 46% of slaves as having no occupations, in other words, nothing to do. It's hardly likely that anyone in the U.S. would go to the expense and trouble of having an illegal slave with nothing to do. Even if a slave is supposed to just stand and make the boss look important, that's an occupation. Something needs fixing in the sentence. It's in the subsection Forced Prostitution and Domestic Servitude.

"In the 2009 Trafficking in Persons Report, Secretary Hillary Clinton addressed that the global financial crisis has decreased the global demand for labor and increased the number of people willing to take risks for economic opportunities will likely increase the prevalence of cases of forced labor and prostitution." It's in the subsection 14,000 People Trafficked Each Year. Two items:

• Should "addressed" be replaced with "said", "suggested", or something else? or should it say that she "addressed the concern that ..." or something else? As now used, "addressed" is grammatically incorrect.
• Otherwise, the sentence is grammatically correct until it says "will likely increase the prevalence of cases of forced labor and prostitution." The sentence needs correcting but I don't know what it's supposed to mean.

"She recruited two girls ... and told them she would get them a job ...." Was there supposed to be job-sharing or did she promise two jobs for the two girls? The latter seems likelier. It's in the subsection Examples.

"Related federal and state efforts focus on regulating the tourism industry to prevent the facilitation of sex tourism and regulate international marriage brokers to ensure criminal background checks and information on how to get help are given to the potential bride." Specifically, this says that "... efforts ... [are] to ensure criminal background checks ... are given to the potential bride." Are the criminal background checks to be given to the potential bride or are the checks for another purpose? If the latter, "are given" should be edited to "is given", since its subject is "information", which is singular. This sentence is in the subsection Laws Against Trafficking.

In the subsection Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act:

• The first sentence is in the past tense and the second sentence is in the present tense. Probably one is correct and the other should be corrected. If both are correct, how that is should be explained in the text.
• "According to the section on Severe Forms of Trafficking in Persons, the definition extends to include ....": the definition of what term?
• A legal discussion looks mildly erroneous. "The original TVPA of 2000 has been reauthorized three times, the most recent being the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. These reauthorizations have clarified definitions of trafficking and forced labor in order both to aid in prosecution of traffickers and to aid the victims of trafficking. The reauthorization versions ...." Possibly a criminal statute is scheduled to expire (be sunsetted), but that's unlikely. More likely is that reauthorization refers to funding, although budgetary reauthorizations may also include substantive amendments. This passage needs clarification.
• "October 2000, the Trafficing Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA) (Public Law 106-386) was enacted. Prior to that, no comprehensive Federal law existed to protect victims of trafficing or to prosecute their trafficers": Probably, "Trafficing", "trafficing", and "trafficers" each need a "k", but the source needs to be checked. If the source erroneously omitted the "k" and we're quoting or a word is in a proper name, "[sic]" needs to be added after each to which applicable.
• A misleading "[9]" appears in the text. That's what a reference looks like but this one is just literally "[9]". It looks as if the text was copied from elsewhere in Wikipedia. The now-fake reference needs to be replaced with a citation or deleted, probably the former.

While I reformatted some references and quotation marks, more may be awaiting the same. I did the ones I happened to see in passing, not a systematic search.

If you know how to edit for any of these points, please go ahead. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC) (Clarified which "[9]" I meant by associating it with the article subsection affected: 16:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC))

edits of March 25, 2012

(The following post is copied from my user talk page (from the topic/section Human Trafficking in the United States Edits), since it's about editing this article, other editors might want to see it, and responses, if any, should be here. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC))

Nick. Thanks for your edits and proposed edits to the article. I just recently made some major edits with regard to the structure and content of the article in order to provide a more scholarly and cohesive point of view on this issue. I have looked at your suggestions about sentence structure and phrasing for the content that is already there and will begin working on that this week. If you have time to look at my changes, however, I would appreciate feedback. I have not currently edited anything about anti-trafficking policies but I hope to make the amendments to the TVPA 2000 a little more comprehensive. Also, what do you think about the history section? I didn't work on that at all, I just changed its order. Hope to hear from you soon. Cyoung530 (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll likely read the article within a couple of days. The edits I've just made were minor only. At first glance, the History section seems fine and otherwise I suggest these:

• Since the lede should be a summary of the body, as having it be a definition of worldwide human trafficking from the UN doesn't serve that purpose, and since the article, and thus the body, is about the trafficking in the U.S., that's what the lede should be about. And, if the quotation belongs in the lede, although the footnote gives an attribution, such an attribution should also appear briefly in the main text (such as, "According to the United Nations, ....").

• The lede should be a summary of the article's body and should not have any footnotes of its own, but there's one now. The note probably should be moved to the body, rather than deleted. If the content the note supports is not in the body, it should be, either with the same wording or reworded or expanded.

• Edit summaries are useful to the rest of us editors. When you edit, below the edit field is a small field in which you can summarize what you did. Usually, brevity suffices, but if you need more room then post to the Talk page and for the edit summary say something like "see Talk" or "see [[Talk:Human trafficking in the United States#New talk topic/section title|Talk]]".

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

In my most recent editing, I deleted redundant wording, spaces, the word "types", a comma, and an unnecessary article; abbreviated most instances of "United States" to "U.S."; edited to reflect likely agency on labor standards, for syntactical consistency for number, for abbreviational consistency ("U.S." rather than "US"), and to clarify; straightened a set of quotation marks; resolved an ambivalent paragraph break into definitely one; and corrected misspellings, punctuation, a reference format and destination, a genitive to not, case, and syntax.

Some edits are edits that I already did. Apparently, someone took an old text with grammatical errors and pasted the block of text in, thereby restoring the errors into the latest revision. If you want to do that, please justify the errors. If all that happened is that someone maintained an offline text and put it into Wikipedia without noticing that the Wikipedia text had already been edited, please check these things. At the top of every article is a View History link. By clicking that and then clicking on the diff link for any revision, you can usually see highlighted what is different for a particular revision. By selecting two revisions, even nonconsecutive ones, and clicking the comparison button at the top or bottom of the history list, Wikipedia will generate a comparison and highlight the differences between the two revisions you've chosen, even if they're not consecutive.

In an article about the United States, it's usually redundant to repeat "United States" in the article. Similar kinds of redundancies were deleted.

Some misspellings seemed to result from verbal misunderstandings. Maybe someone spoke and someone else typed what they heard.

Nick Levinson (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

These are mostly suggestions for editing:

• The lede (and this is partly my doing) lacks a U.S. focus. Since the article has that focus, the lede should, too.

• Criticisms that are sourced and not trivial should not be deleted. One major one has disappeared from the Overview section and needs to be restored in some form. It's about the Washington Post article and the National Review response. It should be placed either where it is most relevant or in a separate Criticism section.

• A sentence says, "Some feminist groups believe that prostitution and sex trafficking are synonymous." I doubt that "synonymous" is the right word in the view of any feminists. The source may consider both to be forced on women, but not all prostitution requires travel. It's acceptable to paraphrase but please check that one.

• One mention is of the "Trafficking Victims Protection Act 2000" and another was of the "Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000". It's unlikely both are or were correct. Probably the latter was (since U.S. practice is usually to include "of" while England usually omits it). This should be checked and incorrect citations corrected.

• A sentence begins, "While women and children may be trafficking from other countries ...." I wonder if children were trafficking anyone. Perhaps "trafficking" should be "trafficked". Please correct or clarify.

• I took the liberty, where it says that 18 U.S.C. 1584 "makes it a crime to force a person to work against his will", of including both genders. I think 1 U.S.C. 1 makes references to the male gender into references to both genders. If only males are covered by the quoted provision, please correct my edit but also please edit the passage, because if this law applies only to males that changes the meaning of anti-trafficking law when mostly females are sex-trafficked.

• Were the passages about North Korean females and females from China and Vietnam (which were deleted from the article) not a good idea to include? Were there problems with sourcing?

• In the subsection Geographic Distribution of Forced Laborers, we need an in-text attribution to the study the paragraph is apparently about, in addition to the footnoting. It does say "In the study," but that's too vague. Say which study.

• In the subsubsection What is Tier 1?, in clause 1, the passage begins with a quotation mark but does not end with one and the next clause does not begin with one. Apparently, all four clauses constitute a single quotation. In that case, the proper punctuation is to begin each clause with a quotation mark while closing only the last clause with a quotation mark. If all four clauses do not constitute a single quotation, please apply quotation marks and, if necessary, brackets and allipses as necessary for accuracy.

• A sentence says, "In 2004, the Department of Labor found 1,087 minors employed in situations that violated Hazardous Occupation Standards." Is "Hazardous Occupation Standards" a proper noun? If it is, cite accordingly. If it is not, set it into lower case, as is done with "child labor laws" in the next sentence.

• References should not have spaces separating them from other references or from whatever they follow in a sentence. Here's a hypothetical example without the spacing we shouldn't have: "It was a common practice.<ref>Source, p. 46.</ref><ref>Another Source, p. 91.</ref>"

• To begin a sentence with numerals is considered substandard grammar. Either spell the numbers or put a word before it. In one instance, I took the previous sentence and turned the final period into a colon, thereby placing the number that was at the beginning of the next sentnece into the middle of a single sentence.

• No more than one consecutive blank line should appear. For example, don't insert two blank lines together anywhere.

Best wishes and thank you for improving this article.

Nick Levinson (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC) (Corrected by deleting accidental excess bllank line: 14:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC))

Edits April 10, 2012

• Reverted lede to previous version without citations and quoted text and added UN definition to the Overview of Human Trafficking. Still think that the lede could use more of a US focus.

• Placed the information that was in the overview from the Washington Post in a criticism subsection under Prevalence

• Changed sentence to “Some feminist groups believe that the exploitation found both in prostitution and sex trafficking is synonymous”

• The passages from North Korea and China were deleted because they lacked citations

• Corrected quotation punctuation under What is tier 1?

• Took out number to start sentences

I still do not necessarily believe that the Child Selling section belongs in the History of human trafficking or even on this article page. The context of this page should focus specifically on trafficking. Child selling, especially as it is described here, is not explicitly for the purpose of exploitation as trafficking is. I plan to post on some Wikiproject Pages to see if anyone has a better idea of where this information might belong.

Cyoung530 (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggested edits to subsections regarding Houston, Texas

• Rather than just making claims about trafficking in Houston, Texas with citations at the end. Specify within the article the explicit studies, organizations, or people that are making such claims.
• This sentence: “Houston’s proximity to the Mexican border, the section of I-10 that runs through, and its port make it a popular point of entry for international trafficking” sounds a bit odd. Consider rephrasing.
• Under section “Houston as a major hub”, you repeat the word “also” consider alternative sentence structure/ vocabulary.
• Under “Types of trafficking in Houston” I don’t think that you need the definition of human trafficking according to TVPA in quotes because the definition is already included under the legislation section of the article. In addition, you have the definition according to TVPA of 2000 twice in that same subsection.
• Many of the references under the Texas legislation are not in the right format. The references should appear after then period in a sentence.
• Discussing the bills that different legislators pass does not need the introduction of “they” each time. Just state what additional pieces of information the new legislation adds. House Bill 1751 has incorrect grammar with the colon.

Cyoung530 (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer edits on the page

I think your article is very well developed with lots of information in it. The information is very well organized as well, except that I would move the Tier 1 section to before the Current status of human trafficking so people will understand the term before reading more about it in following sections. I also am not sure about the content of the history section of the article. I don’t really think this information is relevant to this article. Also, I think the definition at the very beginning of your article should instead be under the overview section instead of by itself. I agree with your thoughts that the child selling section should not be in this article. I think your article is a great source of information to become educated on this topic. Amacune (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review: Sections regarding Texas

First, I want to start by letting you know how great I think your work is, overall. I'm sure the amount of scholarly research regarding human trafficking specifically within Texas is not very large, and yet you have still developed some very high-quality work: great job! Specifically, I think your writing style is excellent: you naturally write with a neutral point of view and vary your sentence structures, which makes your sections very easy to read. However, I do have a few suggestions that I think would make your work even better.

First, your sections regarding Texas legislation are too "sub-sectioned." By the time I reached the information regarding the House Bills, I had lost track of where I was in the overall article. On this note, I suggest you work with cyoung530 in order to reconfigure where your sections are located on the page. Personally, I think there should be a section under "Anti-trafficking laws and policies" specifically titled "Legislation in Texas." The information you have developed is significant enough that it warrants its own subsection, as opposed to being included in the "Policy of state government" section.

Second, in terms of mechanics, make sure you are correctly formatting your citations; periods come before the citation, not the other way around.

Third, I understand that the information included in these bills is important, but because there are so many, and their provisions are so specific, this portion of your work can be dense and difficult to follow. On this note, I have two suggestions. First, I think you should meet with Dr. Strassmann in order to assess whether this structure is the most appropriate; she would know better than I as to how you could best revise your work. Second, perhaps you could utilize bullet points after each of the laws in order to indicate major provisions; this would make understanding why each law is important more clear to the reader.

Fourth, I was surprised that you did not include more non-profit organizations/coalitions that exist specifically in Texas to fight human trafficking. If you have time, I think expanding this section is definitely worthwhile. Two organizations that instantly come to mind are Free the Captives and Children at Risk. Incorporating information regarding efforts to stop trafficking, specifically in Texas, could significantly enhance your work.

In addition, I found a few sources that I think will definitely add to your sections. First check out this website: http://txnp.org/Article/?ArticleID=12913 It details the results of a report completed by the Dallas Women's Foundation that specifically focus on sex trafficking in Texas. Second, look at this article, written in The New York Times by Nicholas Kristof: http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/a-window-into-human-trafficking-in-texas/ It's not particularly long, but there is a link in there to an article published by Texas Monthly that I think would be a helpful read.

Overall, great job. I know how difficult it must have been to find reputable sources regarding this subject, but in spite of this, what you have developed is extremely readable and scholarly. I look forward to reading your final contribution. Crr4 (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer edits for Cyoung530

Your lede section for Current status of human trafficking is fantastic. Great job overviewing what your'e going to discuss! I like your link to the Hilary Clinton page and your very clear attribution to specific sources. I would be interested to know more about the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center. You say that it is an inter-agency alliance, but I'm a bit confused about what agencies are involved. Who runs this organization? What is done with the information that it compiles? In addition, I agree with Crr4's point above that this article as a whole might do well to talk about more non-profits and NGOs that deal with Human Trafficking. Specifically, the Not For Sale Campaign has gotten a lot of media attention and might be worth looking at/ adding. Prevalence Section: I'm a bit confused by the sentence "While women and children may be trafficking from other countries..." Do you mean that trafficking generally occurs when people are already in a foreign country? Try to make this more explicit. Prevalence of forced labor section: I think it is great that you explain the common African practice and mention that that extends into domestic labor in the US, although I think you need to make the connection a bit more clear. How does this practice carry over into the US specifically? Overall, your edits to the article are excellent. You provide many statistics to paint a clear picture of human trafficking, and also discuss concisely the theoretical/sociological factors associated with trafficking. (K Gagalis) —Preceding undated comment added 04:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC).

Suggestions

I thought you showed how thoroughly you researched your topic because you provided a lot of great information about human trafficking. In the “History” section, you have a few grammatical errors, such as you put the period after an end quote in the second paragraph, third sentence. Another issue is that your writing is a little “comma-happy;” try making your sentences more concise and to the point. Overall, the information you provided was insightful though. In the “Prostitution” section, I would recommend you mention specific the feminist groups to legitimize your information because it is unclear which groups you are talking about. Also, after reading this section, I was left wondering what the TVPA policy was so I would suggest explaining what that policy is and what it entails. Nice work overall! TasneemIslam1025 (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review

As a Houstonian, I found this very interesting and informative. I didn't know there was so much human trafficking in the city, and I feel this is a good addition to the page. Hopefully, other cities can be added in in the future. As for your portions, here are some suggestions:

• I would see if you could find another phrase for "a major hub", as it becomes repetitive quickly at its current rate of usage.
• I would consider using the phrase "the city" on occasion rather than always using "Houston", as the subtopic's title makes it clear that the city under discussion is Houston. It also provides more variety.
• "Houston’s proximity to the Mexican border, the section of I-10 that runs through, and its port make it a popular point of entry for international trafficking." The section regarding I-10 is confusing; I would reword it and take a moment at some point to explain why I-10 is an important factor.
• Consider combining some of your sentences to avoid redundant phrases.
• The first sentence under "Types of trafficking found in Houston" starts oddly; I would reword this. I would also move this information to another section, such as the overview or current status subsections. The sentence defining labor trafficking in this section should also be moved.
• I would rename the Examples section, as at first I was expecting examples of human trafficking in Houston and I got confused.
• When discussing the bills in the Texas legislature, I would make sure the ends of those paragraphs read well. Right now, they say things like "Effective:Immediately", making it appear as though you just copy/pasted their summaries in at the end. Word them into more proper sentences.
• It might also be best if you were to organize all those bills into a table. That way, the information is clear, easy to read, and looks less redundant on the page itself. It might also make expressing things like effective date easier.

Overall, this was very good. Great job! Scb3 (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Would it make sense to create a page about Human trafficking in Texas, like we have on Human trafficking in Michigan? There seems to be enough material, and the information does seem heavy for one state. We could have a summary of Texas and Michigan with links to those states. Peculiar Light (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

April 17 Edits

• Overview: added year slavery was abolished
• Current status of human trafficking: moved tier 1 information, took out acronyms
• Prevalence: minor grammatical edits
• Structural factors of human trafficking: specified key leaders of feminist groups to justify their differing positions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyoung530 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

no difference or no big difference

In the view of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, is there no difference between prostitution and sex trafficking or is there no significant difference? The article says there's none at all but I think it's more likely that, in their view, there's no major difference for policy reasons. One citation was to the organization's website's home page and it did not say, so I moved the citation to where it is more relevant, and I don't have ready access to the other cited work. If someone has it, please check. Nick Levinson (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1