Talk:Human trafficking in Houston, Texas

Wiki Education assignment: Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2023 and 23 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ctrlxem (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Evelyn4712, Alecprofit.

— Assignment last updated by Evelyn4712 (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review

The article has great information relevant for us as Rice students. It is well sourced, the lead and intro is strong, it's easy to understand and read which is very important. It is well ordered and argues no points in a very controversial manner, and overall its just very clear and useful information.

I think what the article needs to do is add links and photos. Additionally, just fixing a few small things like an extra sentence in the lead in. Also it needs to proofread.

Most important is links, photos, and proofreading. Alecprofit (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review #2

The article does a great job of telling readers about legislation in Houston that works to control the city's ever-growing human trafficking market. I was impressed by the article's mention of the interstate 10 and the city's Gulf ports as contributing factors to the issue, as I feel like I wouldn't have known that if I wasn't located in Houston. I like how the author commented on labor trafficking, not just sex trafficking, but I would have loved if there was more content on this topic (although the author did mention that information on this is very limited). I encourage the article creator to reword a few sentences and fix some grammar issues, but the structure of the article is great overall. Elaborating on each subsection a bit more would also improve the article. (Evelyn4712 (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC))

Wrong Wikipedia article linked

I have corrected a statement that news reports stated the area was included in a Wikipedia article about "Red Light" districts which was linked to the article Red-light district. This is not supported by the cited source, and if one reads the source carefully one discovers the actual article referred to by the cited source is "list of red-light districts" that the source has not stated correctly nor linked to by the article's correct name. Wikipedia, in turn, cites its own source of information. However, all the cited sources only support prostitution, not sex trafficking. I found I needed an additional source from the Houston Chronicle to support a claim of human trafficking. Considering the warning that the guideline Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia gives, I cannot help but wonder what are the reporters motives for mentioning the Wikipedia article in the first place, in two different articles! However, editors failing to maintain source integrity and trying to say something other than what can be verified by the sources is a form of improper synthesis that needs to be corrected. Follow the source. If the source doesn't say it, Wikipedia cannot either. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your correction! Would it be appropriate to use the same source cited in "list of red-light districts" to support my sentence stating the area was included in that article, rather than using the news source? Ctrlxem (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

In fact, I suspect I have beaten you to it. I noticed the previous sentence needed a citation or two and used the sources I found while following up and correcting the statement that was wrongly linked. If you have a look at my edit changing the sentence about "list of red-light districts" you will find I have already cited a source named "Fletcher" that is the same article written by Abner Fletcher from Houston Public Media that is used by the Wikipedia list article. I have also cited "The Track" article by Gabrielle Banks from the Houston Chronicle. Both citations bear ref names, so all you need to do is re-cite them using <ref name="Fletcher"/> or <ref name="TheTrack"> when you need to cite them at other places in the article. There is nothing in the guidelines that say you only need to cite only one source per sentence. A couple of sources are often needed, and you should cite as many sources as you need to support what you have written, especially if one source needs a subscription but another provides a summary and is open access. Even so, it is possible to have an excessive number of citations if they all cover the same ground. So select your sources judiciously, and try to use an original agency source that is close to the original reporting, rather than a syndicated copy that is too far removed. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Point of view issues

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a neutral point of view and achieve a balance between opposing viewpoints. Articles are supposed to be written impartiality and be objective about the subject. This can be difficult to do when there are partisan sources. However, if editors also inject their own opinions into an article, by misinterpreting sources and substituting words with different meaning that the sources do not use or indicate, I have to wonder if some form of editorializing is going on by editors with their own undisclosed agenda. I have previously noted that I found one source misinterpreted, where the words "sex trafficking" had been used in the article instead of the word "prostitution" that was used in the cited source. This is in addition to a link to a different Wikipedia article than stated in the source, as well as omission of other information that put the claim about Wikipedia in a wider perspective. I hope my rewording has made the article more neutral by attributing an observation about a Wikipedia article to the reporter who made it, rather than suggesting the claim is from Wikipedia itself. By changing this wording and citing additional sources, I had hope to show what I perceived as an anti-Wikipedia bias was in the sources rather than in the Wikipedia article itself. However, I have to wonder what is going on when I encountered the claim that "Illicit Massage Businesses (IMBs) have been often recognized as cover ups for sex trafficking by activists." The cited source is a research paper prepared by university researchers using funds from the Department of Justice. On page 35, the paper cites one example from Chicago where the local police noticed increased advertising from prostitution-related massage establishments and notified a local NGO to intervene. To call the DoJ, university researchers, the police, or even an NGO, "activists" is stretching the term, and suggest there is a biased point of view at play in this article. I would have no issue if the words like researchers, DoJ research, or even police or law enforcement were used instead of the non-specific term "activists". This second example is making me doubt the veracity of this article, or at least the section headed Sex trafficking. So I have tagged the section as needing a POV clean-up. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention! I will definitely review the tagged section, however I believe I might have mistaken the source cited at the end of the sentence that referred to "activists". I remember adding the word because I saw it used in the source I was reading, but could not find it after I reread it. For the time being, I will use your advice on rewording it until I can firmly conclude whether I truly misread the source, or cited the wrong one. Ctrlxem (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Using a value-laden label like "activist" can be open to interpretation and misinterpretation. If you have a choice, be more descriptive and specific, and use objective descriptions or even name the people or organisations that are the "activists". If you have misread a source, citing the page of the source helps isolate where in the source you thought you saw something. If you have made a mistake and cited the wrong source, having the page number helps others assess if you have made a mistake, too. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead section needs clean-up

An article's lead section is meant to provide an accessible overview as to why the topic covered by the article is notable. It should not tease the reader like a newspaper article might. Instead it should briefly cover the who, what, when, where, and why of the topic. The lead should be just long enough to cover the key points that will orient the reader to what the article is about, without superfluous detail the reader does not need to be immediately aware of. Anything longer is too long, and the article won't be read. Details like the mayor's office, or any, definition can be moved into body of the article. The lead could say something like "The prevalence of Human trafficking in Houston is the worst of any U.S. city. Between 2007 and 2016 the city ranked first for reported trafficking cases, while in 2019 the number of cases nearly doubled compared to the previous three years, despite Mayoral initiatives." - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I will add your example, or something similar. Just to get a better understanding of the lead, is the information in that section meant to touch on each element (or heading) of each subject mentioned throughout the article? Ctrlxem (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The length of the lead section depends on the size of the article in question. Short articles should have short leads, while long articles might have longer leads. The two sentences I composed, above, are almost 50 words, an average of 25 words per sentence. Top quality Featured Articles might have a lead of 300 words over 10 to 15 sentences, again in the ballpark of 20 to 30 words per sentence. In some respects, saying less is more informative, because it forces you to be brief and succinct. The lead only needs to highlight the the key points of the topic. In the sentences above, I think I have answered four of the five "W" questions: what - Human trafficking, where - Houston is the worst U.S. city, when - worst since 2007 and its doubled up in 2019, who - the Mayor has implemented initiatives but these haven't helped. This only leaves why to be answered, which, I suspect, is that this is a lucrative organized crime business and existing laws and enforcement agencies are ineffective at controlling the problem. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright I made some changes to address the errors in my article. Please let me know if there are other areas that need some more touch ups! Quick question, do I manually remove any tags placed on my article or do I wait until whoever placed them removes them once they get another look at my edits? Ctrlxem (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ctrlxem: If you read the Help:Maintenance template removal article, it says that if you believe you have fixed the issue a template identifies, you can remove the template. Alternatively, you can reply on the talk page and explain what you have fixed, and ask the person who added the template to review the changes and remove the template that they placed. Like you have done here. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 06:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Essay-like Tag

Hi User:Stuartyeates! It seems you have added an essay-like tag, and I would appreciate any further input you have on my article that I can revisit and edit. Thanks! Ctrlxem (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Ctrlxem the whole article appears to be written from a single point of view (i.e. recent cop-o-ganda and moralising). For example:

• Houston, Texas was founded on slavery and human trafficing, but slavery is not even mentioned in this article.
• Over-reliance on gov and gov-funded sources. No Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International or UN sources. No Chinese sources.
• The map used is 100% misused. That's not Houston. That's east coast and west coast.
• Many of the URLs used as sources don't actually mention Houston; these (and the content sourced to them) need to be purged.
• Doesn't seem to acknowledge the existance of the closely related Human trafficking in Texas.
• The recentism is rampant. This city is > 100 years old but only the last 25 years are actually mentioned.
• Repeatedly refering to trafficed people as 'victims' (which I know the UN def does, but still)

TBH, I find the whole thing a bit bizarre, but here we treat these subjects pretty differently. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I definitely think I could've added a "History" section and mentioned slavery/the past century, so I will keep that in mind. Since my article is specific to a city, I have had trouble finding National sources that specifically talk about Houston. Usually they mention statistics about the U.S. or Texas, but not much about Houston. As for the map, the source I got the map from does mention Houston, as it says that "The major cities indicated that are not capitals are... Los Angeles and Houston" (link here:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Trafficking_of_women,_children_and_men_routes.svg). I realized when sourcing I have missed page numbers from where I got my information from, so I will recheck that, but I do include some non-Houston sources to cite definitions of words and such. I recently add a link to the Human trafficking in Texas article, but if you think talking more about the article would be a good idea, then I will expand on it. I do see your point on the 'victims' wording, so I will revisit and edit.

Thank you again! Ctrlxem (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)