Talk:Migrant domestic workers

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2019 and 9 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amy.scheidecker. Peer reviewers: Juliaruch.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Old Wikipedia Article

I am putting the old entry here on the talk page, should the need arise to access it again

Migrant domestic workers who work for wealthy families in the UK are currently allowed to change employers without breaking the law so long as they continue working full-time as a domestic worker in a private household.

Under proposed changes to the immigration rules in the UK, migrant domestic workers will lose this right to change employers. They will be brought to the UK on a 6 month long 'business visitors visa' which will be non renewable and not permit them to change employers even if they are abused in their employment. Kalayaan, a UK charity which works with migrant domestic workers, is campaigning against the proposed changes which will in practice make it impossible for migrant domestic workers to challenge abuse or to access UK employment law.

On 25 June 2008 migrant domestic workers and campaigning organizations such as Kalayaan and Unite[1] won a huge success. The UK government announced that it committed to the continued protection of this group of workers and would not proceed with plans to end the domestic worker visa and with it the rights of this group of workers to change employers, which allows them to escape abuse.

See also

• Foreign domestic helpers in Hong Kong
• Migrant Worker
• Domestic workers
• Convention on domestic workers
• Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning also known as the 3Ds in Japan
• Women Migrant Workers from Developing Countries

External links

• "Slaves" want UK law change - BBC News
• McDougall, Dan (24 May 2009). "When I hear of girls working in London who swallow acid, I know it could have been me". guardian.co.uk.
• If they have your passport, they have your life - iRR News
• Nanny Abuse - Walrus Magazine

Initial Article Modifications

As part of a group project for our graduate studies program, we are planning on improving this Wikipedia article. While the current entry seems to focus on a specific country, domestic worker migration is an international phenomenon. We thus propose an article that will provide a more global approach to reflect the international nature of migrant domestic work. Our article will be divided into sections touching upon current trends of migrant domestic work, motives for becoming a migrant domestic worker, the recruitment process, advocacy efforts and resistance by migrant domestic workers, as well as best practices.Kelias081 (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, as part of our group project, we will also have a section detailing the vulnerability to abuse of migrant domestic workers. These will touch upon global commonalities, rather than going into detail of the different national and regional risks.KRd12 (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I have posted an introduction, definition, and a short summary of major regulations on the page. adproximumconkate (talk)

I have added a section on improving the conditions of migrant domestic workers (including efforts by civil society, organizations and resistance by workers)Kelias081 (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the new additions are great, Kelias081! Any chance we can consolidate the references though? Like, not cite the page number but the article? That way each source is only mentioned once. It looks really academic, and that's not what I think we want to be going for at this point…right? Or not. I could be totally wrong. adproximumconkate (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Great point! The references look like a bit of a mess. I can clean them up by putting shortened versions? (perhaps author name and page number?)(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Shortened_footnotes). I am a little hesitant to take out the page numbers entirely because I have seen them in other articles (such as LGBT Wikipedia article). What do you think?Kelias081 (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I think my problem is that there are just so many references. Can we maybe consolidate them, so we only mention one source once, but then we list out each page number we used? I just really think it looks super messy with tons of sometimes redundant sources adproximumconkate (talk)

I put the references in two columns instead of one in case that makes it better. The accuracy may be lost if we just mention the source once? Would it then be like a bibliography? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelias081 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I have added a section on the drivers of demand for domestic workers. Marianadp (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)marianadp

Thanks! Can I put your section above the abuse section?Kelias081 (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely! I couldn't figure out how to do that, Karina. Thanks Marianadp (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)marianadp

Girls, do we need to check for more related links in the wikipedia page to our topic? There are a couple of intersting articles on wikigender. I can't put the link here because wikipedia says it's a balck listed site. I'll try to put an interesting page on care drain on the external links list Marianadp (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)marianadp

I will try to link some key terms in my section through [piping]. But this is to other Wikipedia articles.Kelias081 (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok. That didn't work either. Should I just drop the link? It's not clear to me why this page is blacklisted. Wikipedia said I could request permission to reference it. Do you guys thinks it's worth the trouble. Please check the wikigender page called Global Care Drain. Thanks! Marianadp (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)marianadp

During the WIkipedia training session, the guy said that we probably shouldn't include external links on the article? Is wikigender an external link?Kelias081 (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it is an external link.The previous article had a section on external links, though, so is it bad practice to quote external links on the article or to have a section on external links at all?Marianadp (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)marianadp

I have added a section on the vulnerability to abuse.KRd12 (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I have added my section after adproximumconkate 's section. I thought that ordering would make sense. Also, why is the sections on the drivers of migration towards the end. I think it would be better to have it before or after my section for a better narrative flow of the MDWs situation. Sadem91 (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Statistics Section

Do you think we could create a larger heading for the statistics section? Do we need to include some numbers on where many migrant domestic workers are coming from and where they are going?Kelias081 (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Could we transform the statistics section into a table? I think it would be easier to visualize information as such.Marianadp (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)marianadp

SOme stats on domestic workers in the usa: http://media1.annabrixthomsen.com/2013/01/1-a-a-a-a-emp-trabalho-domest-nos-eua.jpg Marianadp (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)marianadp

Sadem91 (talk) 11:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC) To comment on the table suggestion, I think this will be hard since statistics are scares as large numbers of MDWs are nor reported because of the nature of the underground economy. We do not want to have a table that is relatively empty. I think mentioning some estimated numbers should be ok.

I agree with Sadem91. I think the numbers are too "wibbly" to easily write them out, judging from my research. I can, however, make a larger heading for it, Kelias081. Should we standardize the subheading sizes? adproximumconkate (talk)

Yes I agree we should standardize the subheading sizes. You mean the headers under my section? I put === on each side for the headers under my section. Should I change to something else?Kelias081 (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll try that with my subheadings right now adproximumconkate (talk)

Should we have a statistis subsection at all, if the numbers are so unreliable? Or should we call it something like " Estimated statistics"? Also, Kate, did you have a look at the estimated % for the US, in the link I refered to earlier in this discussion? Maybe you want to add a reference to it on your section. Marianadp (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)marinade

I think we are expected to try to give some idea to the size worldwide, and so a statistics section is important. I'd avoid giving numbers just for the US, as it opens us up to the same issue of "do we focus on country examples." It's great that you found those numbers though, and I can find some similar ones for individual countries, but I think it's sufficient to try to give an estimate of how many people might be doing this worldwide and then go "but really, we don't know, because the nature of it is squishy" adproximumconkate (talk)

I've added an elaboration of the statistics, including a table. What do you think? adproximumconkate (talk)

great table! 20:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelias081 (talk • contribs)

thanks! adproximumconkate (talk)

I agree, it's a great table! Just a quick question - are those statistics for domestic workers in general? If that is the case, maybe we should specify that, otherwise it might seem like it's just migrant domestic workers. KRd12 (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It only says "domestic worker" and then, afterwards, I discuss the prevalence of migrants among these numbers. That particular number, however, is almost unfindable, given conditions of employment, so I think having the chart communicate the numbers, regions, and % of women in them, all of which are important data points for us in particular. adproximumconkate (talk)

Talk page - Order of comments and subheadings

Should we be putting our comments in chronological order? (from oldest to newest) I think this is the way Talk pages normally work? I read that Wikipedia says "Put new text under old text" on the Talk page. Mind if I re-order the comments here?Kelias081 (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, can we put subheaders for each topic we want to propose edits on? Might be easier to keep trackKelias081 (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I am fine with reordering the comments. Thanks, Karina Marianadp (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)marianadp

Agreed. I think talk pages are a mess generally, from what I've seen. adproximumconkate (talk)

By the way girls for your info, we only CAPITALIZE the FIRST Word of each heading and subheading. That was a a side note that Wiki put on my page. Did anyone else see that too? Sadem91 (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I have just checked the article and the headings seem according to this rule you just expressed, Sara. Can you point out any title that should be editted? Thanks!Marianadp (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)marianadp

Mariana, I just thought that your part would be better if it is before my section (i.e. recruitment of MDWs). It would be nicer to have this chronological flow of: the drivers of MDWs, then the recruitment of MDWs. This is just a thought. Sadem91 (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sara, I agree with you. You first have a demand for the workers and then you recruit them. I have, in fact, made that change to the article and my section comes right before recruitment. Please let me know if anyone has objections to this order. Marianadp (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)marianadp

Mariana, Yes I like how it looks now. Sadem91 (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mariana for changing the order! I had just noticed that you had replied to my earlier comment about the order Kelias081 (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Images MDW

Are we having any images to illustrate our entry? Suggestions? Marianadp (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)marianadp

I like the image on this page: http://www.caritas.org/Resources/Coatnet/MigrantDomesticWorkersJordan.html Marianadp (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)marianadp

This one won a ILO contest: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/image/wcms_214042.jpg Marianadp (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)marianadp

I like this one. I also found a few good ones here: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2013/10/27/claiming-rightsKelias081 (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I am absolutely loving the ILO one (wow) and I think that HRW picture would go great on the section about advocacy. Does that placement make sense? Obviously we will need to resize the ILO image. Do we do that in Wikipedia or on our own? adproximumconkate (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Sizing and wiki-uploading are certainly challenges to face. Should we ask Ioana for insights on how to do it or has anyone figured that out already?Marianadp (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)marianadp

This does seem complicated. Especially since we need to prove that we have permission to post the photo? Do other Wikipedia articles actually do this?Kelias081 (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

How many picts do we want to put in? I was thinking 2-3? Or do we want one in each section? adproximumconkate (talk)

As long as we find cool and pertinent pictures, I'm fine with having an image per section. They might make the article look more attractive... Or maybe it will just look messy. We'd have to upload the pictures we find and see eventually. Marianadp (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)marianadp

May I add a few more picture links? http://omiusajpic.org/2010/12/06/new-protections-for-migrant/ (the picture, not the organization), and then here's another HRW one, which…maybe (though I like the above ones better) http://ansam518.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/human-rights-watch-walls-at-every-turn/ adproximumconkate (talk)

I take it back. Unless the certificate for usage relating to the image is an easy find, we can maybe sit out the image thing, just because Wikipedia makes it hard to legitimately put up a picture. We could also chance it and put up one that's not ultra-kosher. adproximumconkate (talk)

Certificate of usage? Can't we just reference the picture we want to use? It's not like this is our website and we are deriving personal promotion or economic advantages of any kind here. Please help enlighten me on wikipedia's policy for using images. I am confused. Marianadp (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)marianadp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy Look under "Copyright and licensing" for details about copyright on Wikipedia Kelias081 (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

They are not very clear on what is this license they require. Due to time contraints and this policy complications, we had better not have any pictures then.Marianadp (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)marinade

So, bad news, I tried to track down the info needed to post the ILO picture, to the point that I actually called the ILO last week (I thought "hey, it's a domestic call, why not?"), and they had no idea what I was trying to ask of them, so I decided that unless one of us works in the ILO tech department, there's not a lot that we can do. Sorry. It was a noble goal, and those photos are still great! adproximumconkate (talk)

Categorizing article

Wikipedia suggested we categorize our article (see bottom of article). Should we discuss?Kelias081 (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely! We can also put in those linkages to other articles we talked about in our 4 paragrapher? adproximumconkate (talk)

I added some categories at the bottom of the page. I can show you how to do this if you want to add more. It's shown in this video https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Category (You need to go under preferences and click "Hot Cat" to facilitate the categorizing)Kelias081 (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I have some suggestions for the categories sections but I will try to learn how to make this edit a bit later, since I have failed in my first attempts. First, I'd like to ask what is the policy of categorizating an article? "The more the merrier"? My suggestions would be international migration, immigration, emigration, migrant worker. Marianadp (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)marianadp

I added the ones you mentioned that were recognized by WikiKelias081 (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Should we also add the categories referred to in the previous wiki entry?Marianadp (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)marianadp

A lot of these categories weren't recognized by Wiki but maybe we can add them as "See also"?Kelias081 (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks, Karina. I agree with a see also section. People should have access to the research channels we stumble upon and find useful for the topic, even if they are not recognized by wiki. Maybe we can add a note that they are not recognized. But people can decide for themselves if the information is useless or not. Marianadp (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)marianadp

Introductory paragraph

Should we take out the last sentence of the first paragraph? Is it common practice to explain in the Wiki introduction what the article will discuss?Kelias081 (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It's possible that that's not the MO, but what I've seen has the intro referencing some of the material below. Maybe I can figure out some kind of graceful workaround. Let me have a think, so it's not "We will discuss…" but "Some relevant discussion points are…" adproximumconkate (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, great!Kelias081 (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've made that change in my sandbox, and I'll upload it to the wikipedia page…before the deadline? Is that how this process is supposed to work? adproximumconkate (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we can integrate the changes to the Wiki page right away no? And keep the original in your sandbox and save the newest version in your sandbox right before the deadline so the prof can see the before and after?Kelias081 (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

resolved! adproximumconkate (talk)

Drivers for demand and supply for migrant domestic workers

Love this section! A few tiny comments

Could you perhaps turn your subheadings (the parts in bold) into the same format as the rest of the entry? Just a visual thing, but you can see how to do it in the "Edit Source" section. adproximumconkate (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, I was wondering if you could link some of the terms you use to those wikipedia entries ("Kefala system" and "remittances" especially, since they are really important, and more information on them could be useful to the readeradproximumconkate (talk)

Thanks for these suggestions. Will put more subheadings to structure supply and demand subsections and fix the editing part. Will also add the links to other wikipedia articlesMarianadp (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)marianadp

Drivers for demand and supply for migrant domestic workers - Structure

Should we separate the "supply factors" from the "demand factors" with clear subheadings for each? And maybe include a concluding sentence for each paragraph being more explicit as to why it's a demand/supply factor? Kelias081 (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Karina. These subheadings are now added. Marianadp (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)marianadp

It looks great! adproximumconkate (talk)

Introduction

Is there a source for the following? Is it the same source as the following sentence? "Domestic work itself can cover a variety of tasks, depending on the host country, gender and ethnicity of the worker, and socioeconomic factors"Kelias081 (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I site it in the next sentence, because I'm using the same article as the basis for both. Should I site it twice then, or is it understood that the next citation is for both? I can find a different source for that if possible. adproximumconkate (talk)

Should we link some of the words in the introduction and the other section to other articles? KRd12 (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, in fact. Let me sort out the current linking issue, and I might link our "see also" stuff. Is that what you had in mind? adproximumconkate (talk)

Synonyms for migrant domestic workers

Shall we include a list of synonyms for migrant domestic workers? I remember discussing this at some point. Here are some ideas to start: migrant domestic labor, migrant care worker, foreign domestic worker... Add to the list if you think of anythingKelias081 (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I think I had those in my sandbox. I'll add them. adproximumconkate (talk)

More subsections for "Recruitment" and "Vulnerability"

Should we have more subsections for the "recruitment" and "vulnerability" sections? Or do you prefer continuous text?Kelias081 (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I like this idea, since there are clear divisions within. adproximumconkate (talk)

Also, when I see the sentence "Local recruiters trawl villages and paint rosy pictures of success in urban centers or rich countries abroad" that seems really value-laden and maybe is taking a stand more than presenting information. Can you reword so it's a bit more like "make recruiting pitches based on a professional environment in urban centers or more developed countries than their own" adproximumconkate (talk)

Thank you for the advice, I will take care of that. Sadem91 (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I was going to add sub-headings maybe to my section but I haven't had time to do that. I might add a little bit and then I'll decide about the subheadings. Please don't add them in, I'd rather do it. KRd12 (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I added sub-sections to vulnerability and abuse. Let me know if this looks okay or I should change anything! Thanks! KRd12 (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I am a big fan of your new structure. I think it reads so much clearer. adproximumconkate (talk)

Repetition between "Vulnerability" and "Collective Action"

Should I take out some of the vulnerabilities mentioned in "Collective Action" that may be repeating from the "Vulnerability" section? Is it too repetitive? Can I make reference to the "Vulnerability" section in the "Collective Action" section without listing all the vulnerabilities?Kelias081 (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's too repetitive. I would take it out and maybe just mention it shortly but otherwise it's superfluous. KRd12 (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay I tried to summarize my first paragraph Kelias081 (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks good! KRd12 (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Link Problems?

Are you all seeing this "This article currently links to a large number of disambiguation pages (or back to itself) (check | fix). Please help direct these ambiguous links to articles dealing with the specific meaning intended. Read the FAQ. (December 2013)" business? I'll try to fix it. Dang. I was hoping that I could put this thing to bed. adproximumconkate (talk)

Nevermind! Just a minor panic! Looks like Kelias081 and I are on the case! adproximumconkate (talk)

We ran the fixer program on it, but the message is still there. I'm sort of hoping it just goes away. thoughts? adproximumconkate (talk)

Introduction

I noticed a reference to a Wikipedia article. Think we can put an original source instead? Kelias081 (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. adproximumconkate (talk)

Also, wondering if we might need to put more emphasis on migrant domestic work instead of just domestic work? Kelias081 (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I've included an academic quote that situates more the intersectionality aspects of female MDWs to close out the intro. adproximumconkate (talk)

Migrant domestic workers in the world

Should we take out ""which can result in confusion and ambiguity worker-employer expectations"" as this may be more analytical than taking from the literature? (I didn't notice any sources for this part of the sentence) Kelias081 (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it was analysis. Resolved. adproximumconkate (talk)