Talk:Human trafficking in the Philippines/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I just added a small section on Puerto Galera to the article, over the next few weeks ill continue to ad more sectionsSusanbryce 12:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Susan fuck off you lunatic psycho bitch, no wonder you get threats in the emails, you deserve it

first case of aids is quoted as being a sex worker in 1985 in angeles. it is incorrect the first case was a homosexual in 1984 http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:EuuhSdBmaZEJ:www.psmid.org.ph/vol25/vol25num2topic5.pdf

one can only assume that when a professional journalist like susan bryce consistently inserts false and misleading information into the article that it is done intentionally. so far i have checked 12 of her citations. all 12 of her statements either misrepresent what the citations are saying or are complete errors.RodentofDeath 18:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


Contents

Clarification on Sex Slavery

Im going to ask the moderators to settle here the dispute on the term sex slavery due to the fact that other people keep reverting to the term prostitution. Now, according to wikipedia, here is the definitioin of sex slavery....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_slavery , also, it should be noted, A recent development should be noted that proponents of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) in the United States, and Sweden's Act On Prohibiting The Purchase Of Sexual Services seek to define all forms of prostitution as exploitive or de facto slavery. If it can be shown that a person is involved in prostitution because of poverty, debt bondage, helf captive, is a child, drugged, beaten, threatened, etc, then that is sex slavery.Susanbryce 19:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

susan, you are introducing original thought. if your citations say "prostitution" then the term is prostitution. you cant go changing what your citation says to fit your own agenda.

also, i read the defination quite a while ago and it does not say that prostitution is sex slavery.

In fact it is not original thought. According to wikipedia, the United Nations, Sexual slavery is a special case of slavery which includes various different practices: Including forced prostitution ! Many of the aryicles I have quoted consistentlt show that women and children in the Philippines are "forced" into prostitution.Susanbryce 20:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

i can show you many pictures of white cars. that does not mean that all cars are white. prostitution and forced prostitution are not the same thing. kapal mo. if your citation says "prostitution" then it is talking about prostitution. it is not talking about forced prostitution. you cant continue to change the content of your citations to fit your political agenda.RodentofDeath 20:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

RodentofDeath, Adhoc has already clarified the sex on Panjisanan, why dont you just accept the senior editors ruling instead of changing it....Susanbryce 20:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Although Homosexuals pedophilles in Pagsanjan are the most prominent, they not the only pedophiles. Also, it is a section on child sex slavery in Pagsanjan, not a section on homosexuals. The citations also clearly cite the child sex trade.Susanbryce 20:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you disagree with certain areas, why dont you discuss the matter here and let the senior editors decide. I have always agreed to the decisions of the senior editors and honoured them. So if you think im wrong, the best way is to put your case here and let the senior editors decide and ill abide by that.Susanbryce 20:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

where did a senior editor rule on anything? are you fabricating things again? adhoc's profile says "This user helps out with the editor assistance program." looks to me like adhoc is not a senior editor but an editor assistant. did adhoc read your citation? as far as i can see adhoc changed the title based on what was in the article at the time written by you. i later clarified the situation discussed in your citations. susan, who are you to decide what a section is limited to? if your citation is about homosexuals and prostitution then what makes you think you should be the one to decide to limit it to only child sex? an encyclopedia is about facts. it is not about you pushing your agenda. RodentofDeath 20:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact You are Wrong. I origianly had the section titled: Child sex Slavery in Pagsanjan, but on May 7 at 18.55, Adhoc changed it to: Homosexuals pedophilles in Pagsanjan. On that basis, it should be left at that as he is the senior editor here to settle editing disputes. If you are not still happy, I suggest you debate the matter here on the discussion with him. That is the correct approach.Susanbryce 17:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


the contents of the section have changed since adhoc found your title to be in error previously. please dont put words in adhoc's mouth. if adhoc has a problem me adding content and then changing the title then let it be posted here by adhoc. not you. adhoc is perfectly capable of expressing an opinion without you. i am sure adhoc will be happy to know about the promotion to senior editor you have given.RodentofDeath 17:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

poppy. the time magazine article is from 1993. certainly that is no longer considered current. changed "is" to "was in 1993"RodentofDeath 17:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Would everyone just please calm down thankyou, I have maintained the additional citation and information added by RodentofDeath, while still maintaining the previous by Adhoc. Yes, the time aricle seems dated, so it is best to mention in the article that although the area had a major problem in the past with child prostitution, the government has taken action and it has had a major clean-up. If both sides agree, I suggest we build consensus here to difine the final outline, thankyou.Poppy2828 17:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Kate Gordon made a similar crackdown up in Olongapo City in the 90`s after the base closed and the siuation has remained reasonable since then. Could be the reason why we dont see any mention of Olongapo here in the article. It also shows the government can close down this vile trade any time it chooses. In the meantime I have made several changes to the section and would suggest some feedback here. Im just suggesting talk it here and come to a consensus.Poppy2828 17:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


sorry poppy, i think i just messed up by cutting and pasting what i was doing i think i erased a bit of stuff you had put into the article. if you wish to revert please do so.RodentofDeath 17:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

ok, let's start with this. why is the title "homosexual pedophiles" instead of "homosexual prostitution"?? since the section is discussing both would it make more sense to call it homosexual prostiution since pedophiles would fall under the same topic? if its the other way around "homosexual prostitutes" does not fall under the topic of "homosexual pedophiles". ...and why does someone keep adding the word "slavery" into someone else's thoughts???RodentofDeath 18:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


I have just simply changed the name of the section to "Pagsanjan". I feel thats the best compromise here for everyone and hope we can all agree on that. I also did the same with the other sections on Subic, Angeles and Galera. I had to remove the section on the francis Ford movie as it is not relevent to the article. Other then that, im happy to leave things in the section discussed as they are, unless there are any further challenges then talk it here. On the area of sex slavery, well, someone higher up is going to need give us all a ruling on that after what I expect will be a solid debate. In the meantime, please add to the article, but refrain from removing other peoples work till it has been discussed here and a consensus reached. Hope I was of help to everyone.Poppy2828 19:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

i dont think there is much of a debate. forced prostitution is a form of slavery. prostitution is not. if a citation is talking about prostitution then you cant substitute the words "sex slave" as they are not interchangeable terms. i would think you wouldnt want be substituting words from your citation anyway but some people really seem to want to do that to push an agenda here.
the reason for the Apocalypse Now reference was that it was claimed the town became famous for child sex. it was already famous. as long as that claim isnt reinserted i agree that the movie reference isnt needed. RodentofDeath 01:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry RodentofDeath, but I have temporarily removed the section on gro`s. It is uncited and the one link you give does not meet Wikipedia guidlines. My suggestion is to establish your case here in the discussion area first with several quality citations. If you can do that, then the section will be re-added. As I said, I have only removed this temporaily to be fair in an effort to avoid any further childish edit wars. I also noted you placed the same article in the Angeles page. Can you give a valid reason why the same article should be repeated here? If you have concerns about this, please discuss it here rather then engage in an edit war.Poppy2828 13:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Before any further changes are done to the article, they should be discussed here, then an agreed consenus can be formed before changes take place.SirSteve 16:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I just transferred the following which was on the Human Trafficking in Angeles page to here because it is more suited to this article. Department of Justice records show that from June 2003 until January 2005 there were 65 complaints received for alleged trafficking in persons violations in the entire nation. http://www.doj.gov.ph/news_06-07-05.html thanks.Poppy2828 20:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the "Where To Report" section as it is a valuable addition to the article. RodentofDeath had previously added this to the Human Trafficking in Angeles article, but I felt it should also be added here as it is a valuable resourse. I also removed the see also link to Human Trafficking in Angeles as it already appeared above and there was no need to duplicate the link again.Poppy2828 13:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested new Info

Im suggesting we add a new section on NGO`S and their involvement in helping the victims...there are a number of other NGO`S that can be added to this, but im suggesting this for a start....

Actions by NGOs.... Some women’s organizations have taken up the issues of prostitution and/or trafficking in the Philippine Network Against Trafficking in Women (composed of WEDPRO, Women’s Legal Bureau, Women’s Crisis Center, Women’s Health Care Foundation, Conspectus, Kalayaan); Samaritana and BUKAL in Quezon City; the Nagkakaisang Kababaihan ng Angeles City Multi-Purpose Cooperative (NKAC, or United Women of Angeles City Multi-Purpose Cooperative) in Angeles City, Buklod in Olongapo City, Talikala in Davao City and Forge in Cebu City. Talikala and Forge began their work through HIV/AIDS programs. The Ateneo de Manila University and the Center of Women’s Studies of the University of the Philippines are two academic institutions that are conducting research on the issues. Two major networks, the CATW-Asia Pacific and the PNATW, are the most active in pushing the issues of prostitution and trafficking at national, regional and international levels. They have taken part in press conferences, rallies and demonstrations as well as implemented, in the case of WEDPRO and Buklod, concrete programs on the ground to assist women who work in the “entertainment” industry, and their families.http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/mhvbt.htm .The "PURPLE ROSE CAMPAIGN" Against Trafficking of Filipino Women and Children has helped bring International attention to the sex trade of Filipina women and children.http://www.gabnet.org/campaigns/purplerose/prc.html regards, susan.Susanbryce 18:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


Suggestion to Change Tital to "Human Trafficking in the Philippines

The current title is out of date due to the introduction of the Human Trafficking Act in the Philippines which now defines prostitution as Human Trafficking. Prostitution has become too narrow a title for this, because of the need in the article to talk about sex tourism, sex slavery, cyber sex cafes, pornography, debt bondage, etc. Also, the United Nations has defined prostitution in Asia as Sex Slavery. So in keeping with the Human Trafficking Act, I suggest the titale be changed.Susanbryce 13:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


prostitution and human trafficking are not the same thing according to philippine law. RodentofDeath 22:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings

Even Europe has moved to the position that all forms os sexual exploitation are defined as "human trafficking". The Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (CETS N° 197) was adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 May 2005 and opened for signature in Warsaw on 16 May 2005, on the occasion of the 3rd Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe. The Convention applies to all forms of trafficking; whether national or transnational, whether or not related to organised crime. It applies whoever the victim: women, men or children and whatever the form of exploitation: sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, etc. The fact is, it is generally recognized around the world that illegal prostitution is Human Trafficking and Wikipedia needs to move in line with world governments and there defining of this position. So lwts keep all this under the roof of Human Trafficking.Susanbryce 14:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

the philippines isnt in europe.RodentofDeath 22:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

U.S. State Department Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2003

When one studies the U.S. State Department Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2003, it is clear that sex exploitation is defined as Human Trafficking."As unimaginable as it seems, slavery and bondage still persist in the early 21st century. Millions of people around the world still suffer in silence in slave-like situations of forced labor and commercial sexual exploitation from which they cannot free themselves. Trafficking in persons is one of the greatest human rights challenges of our tim". If the work is exploitive, involving illegal forced labor or debt bondage, or is below national and international labor standards, this too is trafficking.http://www.gvnet.com/humantrafficking/ Human Rights Watch estimates that every year, 800,000 to 900,000 men, women and children are trafficked across international borders into forced labor or slavery-like conditions. Trafficking includes all acts related to the recruitment, transport, transfer, sale, or purchase of human beings by force, fraud, deceit, or other coercive tactics for the purpose of placing them into conditions of forced labor or practices similar to slavery, in which labor is extracted through physical or non-physical means of coercion, including blackmail, fraud, deceit, isolation, threat or use of physical force, or psychological pressure.http://www.gvnet.com/humantrafficking/00-HumanTrafficking.htm.Susanbryce 14:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Prostitution is clealr Human Trafficking and we need to change the name of this article to Human Trafficking in the Philippines to better reflect the current world views.Susanbryce 14:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey there Susan.
Yeah I am on the same page with you, I read this article and thought, "this isn't about prostituion in the Phillipines" it's about pedophilia in the Philipines.
I don't think trafficking is really accurate at this point. The article contains some refferences to traffiking, however the majority of it is about padeophillia. I propose we create a new article called "Pedophillia in the Phillipines" with a brief section here in this article. What do you think? Devalover

The article still has a lot of developement to go, but I feel in keeping with the Philippine governments anti-trafficking law and the fact that pedos, sex tourism, prostitution, slavery, etc all now come under this law and are referred to as Human Trafficikng in the court cases in the Phil now, I felt a change to Human Trafficking would be best as it would give us the chance to cover a large range of topics in the article.Susanbryce 16:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Susan- we are just getting to know each other... and I don't believe you when you say that prostitution- sex between two people over the age of 18 is called "Human Trafficking" in the courts.
I do beleive you that pedos, slavery etc are called trafficiking.
Would you please provide a refference which backs up what you said?
To be sure there is some cross-over between child sex tourism and adult sex tourism/adult prostitution, however, I have never heard prostituion between two adults reffered to as "human trafficking." Devalover 02:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks your reply Devalover, Im only refering to the philippines, not other countries, and in the Philippines under the anti-trafficking it is referred to as trafficking even if people are over 18. Heres the link....http://www.chanrobles.com/republicactno9208.html In effect, the courts and prosecuters no longer use the term prostitution in Phil, everthing is now called traficking, even if it involves over 18, because prostitution in Phil, unlike in western countries, is considered a very serious offence, that ranks up there with murder. With that said, im only making a suggestion the title of the article be changed to Human Trafficking In The Philippines, but in the end, Ill leave that up to more experienced Editors to make that final decision. Kind regards.Susanbryce 13:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

susan, your information is incorrect. everything is not called trafficking. the law you quote does not say prostitution between two consenting adults over the age of 18 is human trafficking. "Senate President Franklin Drilon clarified that the law does not criminalize prostitution but penalizes those who engage the services of women and children forced into prostitution."[1]

Hi Susan, hi Rodent.
Susan, I don't doutb for one second that if the person over the age of 18 is trafficked, it is still called trafficking.
When I read the link you provided, I do see a clear distinction made between trafficking and prostitution:

"(a) Trafficking in Persons — refers to the recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of arsons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or across national borders by means of threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the persons, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum, the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs.

The recruitment transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall also be considered as "trafficking in persons" even if it does not involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph.

(b) Child — refers to a person below eighteen (18) years of age or one who is over eighteen (18) but is unable to fully take care of or protect himself/herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition.

(c) Prostitution — refers to any act, transaction, scheme or design involving the use of a person by another, for sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct in exchange for money, profit or any other consideration. "

Given the focus of the article as it is written, I concur that it should be changed to Human Trafficking in the Phillipines. I will look into the logistics of how this is done.
Just to be clear, I want to add that given the sources, a definite distinction is made between trafficking and prostituion under Phillipine law and my interest is in accurately representing the sources. The majority of this page is about trafficking and very little about prostitution. My proposal is to create a new page called Human Trafficking in the Phillipines and move the majority of this page there, and have a small blurb on it here and then See main article Human Trafficking in the Phillipines Devalover 02:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Devalover 01:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


Hello Devalover, yes I concur with what you are saying. I think to create a new page called Human Trafficking in the Phillipines and move the majority of this page there is the best idea, thanks for your help, kind regards.Susanbryce 16:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I began the move, when I really looked at this "article." It really isn't an article, it is a collection of citations dealing with trakkicking, prostitution, child prostitution, all mixed together. It is a mess... and I realized that until it is serioulsy cleaned up, I don't want to put my time into making major structural changes. Anyone else is free to do the above move. Devalover 14:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks devalover, one of the biggest problems why this article has become a page of quotes from citations is the Edit war that we also see going on over at human trafficking in angeles. If anyone tries to write an article frm a citation it is subject to never ending edit wars, attacks, etc. Take for example when we tried to have a sort highlight of the trafficking act and the edits that followed, forcing us to attach almost the entire act. In the end, I still believe we need to chane the title to human trafficking in the Philippines., as this covers all the areas you mentioned, plus helps reduce the never ending edit war. Thanks for your input, kind regards, Susan.Susanbryce 17:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Heya Susan.
Yeah it sounds like there has been a lot of edit warring...
Hearing again your desire to change it, I feel more inspired to do it... I proposed the move over a week ago and have heard no one say not to do it.... so here we go. Devalover 17:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Develover, good move. Question...should we build a section on pedophiles here in this article. Ive been working offine on three sections to this, a) the gangs that control the pedophile trade, b) the pedophiles , c) the pedophiles supports group. In fact, its this pedophiles supporters group that im doing a lot of investigation into right now, they are a well organized, well funded group in the phil.Susanbryce 17:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God Susan... organized pedophiles? My heart breaks hearing this... whole organizations dedicated to supporting pedophillia?
An article on Pedophilia in the Phillipines is a possibility... much of it will overlap of the Trafficking page, me thinks... let me sit with it a bit. Devalover 18:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

develover, you might find the following article of interest.... http://www.preda.org/archives/1999/r9901071.htm.Susanbryce 18:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

i too would be very interested in proof these organizations exist as up until now i have not seen any. i am also looking forward to the results of your thousands of hours of undercover video you already have recorded in angeles. i'm a bit perplexed as to why it would take so long for law enforcement to act upon such hard evidence as video. certainly thousands of hours of video must show thousands of legal violations if the problem is anywhere near as bad as you are claiming. any arrests yet? RodentofDeath 06:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

staying on topic

the article is about prostitution in the philippines. i deleted the section on cyber porn as that is clearly not prostitution. while i was tempted to delete things that appeared initially not to have anything to do with prostitution it turns out they could be made relevant if re-written. for instance, in the british embassy in manila only talks about child abuse here, which is admittedly horrible but is definitely not prostitution. looking at the citation i do believe it could be made more relevant to this article if re-written. the same should probably be done with other statements in the same section of this article. RodentofDeath 05:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the Departement of Justice does classify it as prostituting a person.Susanbryce 13:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sb: Do you have a link handy for that one? It sounds like it's in the neighborhood, but we could use a clearer guideline. / edgarde 13:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, ill work on that Edgarde, in the meantime may I suggest the name of the article be changed to Human Trafficking in the Philippines. This will give us greater scope and help to reduce the never ending edit wars. Otherwise we may end up being forced to break the article into several articles on wikipedia which I dont think is the best experience for the reader or researcher here. Your opinion please?Susanbryce 17:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


Ok, I just realized something in the legal section, the Revised Penal Code Article 202 is now outdated, it is overridden by the trafficking act. It should be removed and a greater clarification and importance placed on the trafficking act. Opinions pls?Susanbryce 18:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

susan, i hate to keep repeating myself but the human trafficking act does not criminalize prostitution. the quote by the author of the article clearly says this. hte human trafficking act simply has the definition of prostitution in it just as it has the definition of a child in it. unless a law states that it repeals or "overrides" something then it does not. RodentofDeath 05:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Cyberdens paragraph

This paragraph has some problems

==Cyber sex Dens - With an estimated 50 to 75 cyber sex dens today, the Philippines now ranks fourth among “child prostitution centers” in Asia, according to Chief Supt. Rodolfo Mendoza, deputy director of the PNP’s Directorate for Investigation and Detective Management. Mendoza said local cyber sex syndicates, victimizing mostly children aged 10 and below, can earn at least $1 billion a year.[2] - In 2003, the National Bureau of Investigation raided three residential apartments in Pasay City due to alleged operation of internet pornography.[3]


1) The quote attributed to Mendoza is nowhere to be found on the page cited.

2) Mendoza does not say local cyber sex syndicates target mostly children.

3) No source for 50 to 75 dens

4) Mendoza does not say that dens which target children can earn $1 billion a year.

To be fair, at the bottom of the page this: 135. Child porn in RP a US$1-B business: senator. Retrieved 8 January 2005 from SunStar Network Online. <http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/net/2005/01/20/child.porn.in.rp.a.us$1.b. business.senator.html> And, an unretriable footnote is a questionable source at best.

None of the ideas contained above are actually in the source, in fact the source you have listed challenges the "4th prostituion center!"

"The claim, that the Philippines is the fourth largest producer of child pornography, [ 135 ] however, is open to debate, inasmuch as that it is not supported by any accurate empirical data" Devalover 03:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Devalover, I removed the section on cyber sex dens, I think I have quoted the wrong source there, my mistake, Ill try and track down what should have been there and do some more research in this area. Kind Regards.Susanbryce 13:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Quality issues with this article

Without delving into the content issues of this article (I haven't read this article enough to make judgements about any debates), I'd like to raise some quality issues regarding how this article is currently written, not with what is written in here. I do hope that whoever is/are concerned with this article would heed my observations:

  1. Provisions of the Penal Code need not be quoted in full. They take up too much space and, in effect, distracts the focus from the main topic to the laws itself. Not only that, it also reminds me of a sloppily-written report by a lazy high school student who merely cut and pasted from various sources on the Internet (which is clearly what happened here). I trust that most of us here are mature enough to do something much, much better than this. What can be done: just summarize the Penal Code articles, provide external links (e.g. via the "References" section) then quote only the relevant portions of the Penal Code. There are a whole lot websites from Philippine law firms that have this in full.
  2. De-focus the point of view away from a single point of view. There is a clear distinction between what is considered neutral on WP and between a clearly biased point of view. Not that I'm against or for prostitution (let's better leave that discussion outside of Wikipedia), but remember that this article is an encyclopedia article; this article clearly needs a lot more improvement on this area. If a high school or college student was doing a research paper, would you trust this article (as it stands today) to be used as a point of research?
  3. Merge all discussions about anti-prostitution/anti-human trafficking activities into a single section to improve the quality of the article. For simplicity's sake, that is. This article is about human trafficking in the Philippines; efforts to combat these would consitute only a part of it. Merging these particular items would improve the consistency of the discussion and also make the article more organized. Again, this is an encyclopedia; Wikipedia is not a forum, a soapbox or anything similar, so leave that elsewhere. Enough said.

Thank you...in case you care enough to read through all my two cents. --- Tito Pao 06:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree the article needs to be more encyclopedic. But the fact is I dont have the education or the ability to do that, Ive always been upfront about that from the beginning. Im trying to present the information as best I can, but in the end, we are going to need highly experienced neutral Editors such as Edgarde and Phadeus to get involved and do a rewrite here if they have the time. With that said, Im working offline and have enough information to increase this article 200 times in size. Thats going to be a problem. So I think the best idea is that this page is the launching point into other pages, similar to that of Angeles. For example, i have enough info on subic, manila and other areas to form their own massive articles. So I believe we should keep that focus in mind here. Kind Regards.Susanbryce 13:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've not been following the action closely on this Human trafficking in the Philippines — these articles are a lot of reading, and I barely have time these days for the ones I'm already watching — but I recall Devalover doing some nice editing in other articles. If a guideline is needed, Titopao sets some good priorities.
Besides, the usual parties would insist I am not neutral, so my involvement might foster more edit warring. / edgarde 14:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thnks Edgarde, yes Devalover is fine with me and has already helped here a lot and im happy to work with Devalover.Susanbryce 15:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks both of you for the vote of confidence.... I try to just follow wikipedia guidelines and summarize what the sources say...
Susan that is amazing that you have all of that info. Wow- we could have quite an amazing set of articles here. I'll drop by your talk page. Devalover 00:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Susan, if you ask me honestly, there's so much to learn about Wikipedia that, perhaps, only Jimbo himself might be the only person who knows everything that we should all know on Wikipedia. I myself would find myself leafing through at least two or three help pages for each article I edit (there are nearly 1,000 pages on my watchlist, so you could just imagine....) In addition, some editors on WP have been here for a short time and yet have made vast improvements by doing their own homework before making their edits, while some have lingered on for quite a time but are still struggling.
Having said that, don't be afraid to ask questions or seek the help and advice of other WP editors. If you have time to spare, take the time, too, to read through all the help pages and other Wikipedia-related pages to help you grow as a Wikipedian. (Memorizing a few [[WP:|shortcuts]] also helps.)
Since your goal is to improve your skills as a WP editor and at the same time make use of the troves of information that you have, I'd suggest that you take time to read The Transhumanist's Virtual Classroom, it has excellent tutorials and a very nifty compilation of must-reads for beginners. You can also take a look at the Starter Toolset, which is an even more comprehensive (and massive) compilation).


The legal section, the Revised Penal Code Article 202 is now outdated, it is overridden by the trafficking act. It should be removed and a greater clarification and importance placed on the trafficking act. If others approve, lets remove it please.Susanbryce 12:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free then, no one's stopping you ;-) Just make sure, though, that you'll provide links to the new law so that we can verify that the pertinent provision of the Penal Code was, in fact, repealed. (It will usually appear near the end of a Republic Act, just before the uqibuitous signatures of the Senate President, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Philippines.) Thanks --- Tito Pao 07:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Penal Code 202 has not been "overridden" or repealed nor has it expired. this is the current law that makes prostitution illegal. prostitution is not human trafficking, however, so i understand if others wish to have it removed. i'm simply trying to clarify. RodentofDeath 05:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Australian Broadcasting Commision Documentary

I just recieved the tape of a documentary that was broadcast on the Australian Government owned , Australian Broadcasting Commision television network there on Tuesday nite. It was a shocking brutal expose of the massive pedophile trade that is taking place in Angeles and how pedophile organized crime syndicates run places such as Angeles and Subic. Not sure, but are we allowed to add a section on Documentaries to the article? heres the link that gives a summary of the programme....http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2007/s1937968.htm

Documentaries are allowed, of course.
I would ask of you though to only add material that is new and very essential information. From my perspective, this article is suffering from information and citation overload.
The organized crime section could use some more data and I think we have plenty on Angeles and we're nearly full on Subic. Devalover 17:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


Devalover, over at the wikipedia article on prostitution in thailand....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Thailand they have a section towards the bottom listed, "Books and documentaries". I thought this is a good idea and well layed out and suggest if you agree we do that here on this article, I know of several documentaries. Also, can we do another section that lists organizations in the Philippines that are dealing with this issue such as charities, aid workers, ngo`s, etc.Susanbryce 13:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that section is done well. Feel free to set it up, and again I would ask that you keep it around 4-5.
When you say "lists" I cringe. Take a look at Human Trafficking. I would be opposed to creating a section with the purpose of listing every organization in this article and I would be very open to a section which tells about a few of the main ones.
Such a list might fit well in a Philippine Charity article or something similar.Devalover 20:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Great Idea Devalover, the Philippine charity page is a much better idea. I think ill concentrate on setting that page up next as my priority.Susanbryce 12:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move

Once it is cleaned up, I propose moving the CATW section to Prostituion. Most of the issues listed appear to be directed towards prostitutes, with only a few of the issues listed deal with trafficking.Devalover 17:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sex Tourism in the Philippines

Im thinking Ill start a new page on wikipedia on Sex Tourism in the Philippines. This alone is such a massive issue it really is going to need its own page.Susanbryce 17:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


Breaking this article in around 20 major Articles

Ok, Ive had a lot of motivation in the last 48 hours and have been working hard and will soon be ready to break this article into about 20 massive full articles on human trafficking right across the philippines

perhaps it would be better to correct all the errors inserted into this article before moving on to others.RodentofDeath 16:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Victims

the victims section has some serious bias problems and some info that is just plain wrong. for instance, the first line has a statement about kidnapping. yet the citation says nothing about kidnapping.

this type of thing continues throughout this section and possible throughout the entire article. here are a few other things i noticed:

  • Women held in debt bondage. (seems to say they are held in debt bondage to the legal system?)
  • Restriction of movement. (this does not make sense. nobody is restricted from moving throughout the philippines.)
  • Anti-vagrancy laws are unconstitutional (this would be an opinion, not a fact. anti-vagrancy laws are still in effect and have not been declared unconstitutional).
  • Women have the status of criminals. (women in prostitution have the status of criminals because prostitution is illegal. yes, they are criminals).
  • Economic abuse, i.e. no work, no food and poverty. (i dont see how this equates to abuse. if you dont work you dont get paid.)
  • The “salvaging” or summary execution, especially of sick women (think your going to need some more citations for this one!!)

sounds like some outrageous accusations and would require better citations to support these.

also this line... "bar owners and pimps make the most profit while the women are exposed to abuse, physical, emotional and psychological trauma." bar owners make money off prostitution? all bar owners? some bar owners? one bar owner? please support this statement. RodentofDeath 18:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Vagueness

We had" "It is estimated there are 10,000 young girls trafficked into sex slavery in Cebu.[4] "
Quote from the BBC " a sex industry, estimated to employ 10,000 young girls in Cebu alone."

  1. ^ http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/issues/prostitution_philippines.html
  2. ^ http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view_article.php?article_id=7373
  3. ^ http://www.arellanolaw.net/publish/itlj-issue3_13-2.html
  4. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1713865.stm
  1. 10,000 trafficked every year? Every week?
  2. What is a "young girl"? In the context as it was in our article one would think a child.
  3. Who estimates it? The Beeb doesn't say.
  4. Sex slavery is not the sex industry
  5. Being employed is not the same as being trafficked.

Realistically, as Cebu City has a population of 718,821, the implication we were creating was extraordinary.

Rich Farmbrough, 12:07 18 September 2007 (GMT).

Cites of cached pages

I noticed that this article cites several cached pages as supporting sources. Not a good idea.

-- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


Line that makes no sense

Angeles Mayor Francis Nepomuceno has acknowledged the problem. “We admit having HIV cases and that prostitution may be flourishing". STD cases rose five times. The RHWC treated 1,421 cases in 2005, 2,516 cases in 2006 and 6,229 cases in 2007. Most of the afflicted were women. [39]

The above line is cut and pasted word for word from the source. The "problem" that the mayor is acknowledging is not the previous line in the Human trafficking in the Philippines#Angeles of the Human trafficking in the Philippines article that reads like this:

UNICEF reports evidence of growing child pornography production in Angeles City.[37] Children as young as ten years old have been rescued from brothels in Angeles.[38]

No, the problem that the mayor is acknowledging is related to preventing the spread and rise of HIV/AIDS in the city to prevent tourism from drying up.

Again, from the source cited,

In the recent AIDS summit, regulators dealt with two concerns: How to increase the competency of health providers and regulators to prevent the epidemic rise of HIV/AIDS “which may lead to the downfall of the tourism industry and the economy of the city.”

Angeles Mayor Francis Nepomuceno has acknowledged the problem.

“We admit having HIV cases and that prostitution may be flourishing. We’re taking decisive actions to protect the people in the red light districts, especially the minors,” he said.

The line:

The RHWC treated 1,421 cases in 2005, 2,516 cases in 2006 and 6,229 cases in 2007. Most of the afflicted were women.

was cut and paste from another area of the article.

I would say this pretty much violates WP:COPYVIO

I would fix this, but would like to gauge consensus on my concerns first as other articles on this subject and similar subjects have been debated rather intensively.

I would also point out two additional things.

1. Copyright violations have been pointed out to this editor before. (Now removed on their main talk page.) Please see this version of their talk page.

2. Again, this section reads as a collection of facts using WP:SYNTH that promotes a certain POV. This was one of the criticisms of the original article before it was deleted.

I only had time to verify and check one other source. (Will try to do more later)

That source and line was:

UNICEF reports evidence of growing child pornography production in Angeles City.[37]

The source mentions Angeles in one line that says, "She said the UN study found extensive evidence of child pornography in the Philippines, particularly in tourist destinations like Pagsanjan in Laguna, Angeles City, Baguio City and Puerto Galera in Mindoro."

The next line, conveniently left out that would have provided balance, also says, "Bellamy said the Philippines is among the few countries that are making a dent in the fight against the trafficking of women and children."

The last line of the article says, "According to the study, the number of reported child pornography victims totaled nine in 2000; four in 2001; seven in 2002 and 13 in 2003. Child prostitution data listed 186 reported cases in 2000; 224 in 2001; 245 in 2002, and 247 in 2003."

I would imagine that line about "growing production" could be better written since the study is 5 years old and the source also says the Philippines is "among the few countries that are making a dent in the fight against the trafficking of women and children."

HurryTaken (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


I just found another example of WP:COPYVIO
The Pampanga section of this article is a selected cut and paste from the Sun Star article is cites. Nothing was originally written. Rather, all the original article text from Sun Star is in the Pampanga section and just pieced together.
Pampanga
More than a dozen of cybersex operations have been busted in the Pampanga province and Angeles City areas, this resulted in the rescue of hundreds of exploited women, most of them minors or below 18-years of age. Human trafficking or trafficking in person is some sort of slavery.Hundreds of computers sets have been seized, including sex toys and other gadgets used in the cybersex operations mostly maintained by foreigners. A forum hosted by the Prosecution Law Enforcement and Community Coordinating Service (proleccs) discussed several factors that contribute to the human trafficking problem and these include poverty, the proliferation of underground cybersex through internet and sex tourism..[1]
Here is the specific edit that added the copyrighted text.
Here is the article it was copied from.
HurryTaken (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


Another copyright violation in the Makati section.
The Chief of the Southern Police District deployed policemen in schools in Makati City following the abductions of children by those involved in the sex trade industry. P/Supt. Manuel Cabigon, SPD director, said the increased police presence in the vicinity of schools would deter members of a flesh trade syndicate from further pursuing their illegal activities.[54]
This is again cut and paste from the source it cites, which is cut and paste (at least with attribution) from The Philippine Daily Inquirer. Part of it is slightly re-written, but barely. The sentence starting with P/Supt. is an exact cut and paste.
Here is the specific edit that added copyrighted information.
Here is the page the information was cut and paste from. More Cops Deployed vs Sex Gang
What is Wikipedia's policy on citing sources that are citing sources? I have seen several examples of that in this article so far.
HurryTaken (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Speaking just to that last-mentioned case, it appears that PREDA is violating the PDI's copyright here by republishing their article verbatim, and this WP article is linking to that copyvio source. See {{copyvio link}}. More generally, I'm no expert but it is my understanding that lifting and requoting a short snippet from a news article is fair use. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


Preda has permission to reprint those articles. Fair use generaly says You can use up to 10% of an article for certain reasons in non commercial publications. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and non-commercial so it is ok.Susanbryce (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


At the very least, I think it is poor style to compose a Wikipedia article made up of cut and paste from news articles. A large percentage of work (I haven't had time to check the article completely yet though) in this and other WP articles seems to be primarily this. Also, it severely affects the flow and readability of the WP article. (Collection of facts again.) I posted this issue on the admin noticeboard as well to get some additional input.
HurryTaken (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess I am also curious about sources citing sources. How does WP:V apply if there is no way to verify the contents of the original article, which is ultimately being used to source information on Wikipedia?
HurryTaken (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The WP:V policy says that material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. The WP:RS guideline says that articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The WP:NOR policy says that all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.
If the article reports a claim made by a source which is appropriate to the claim made and which a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, it is not necessary verify further. If the source does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, or if the source is not appropriate to the claim made, it is necessary to further verify the claim. Further verifying the claim generally means finding a better supporting source source. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sex Tourism

In the Sex Tourism section of this article, it is mentioned that 300,000 Japanese sex tourists visit the Philippines each year. However, according to Philippines Tourism Secretary Joseph Durano, only 395,012 Japanese sex tourist visited the Philippines in 2007.

Philippine tourist arrivals reach new high in 2007

At the risk of being accused of WP:OR, I find it hard to believe 76% of all Japanese visitors to the Philippines are sex tourists.

The source for that statement, PREDA, is citing another source ECPAT in that particular citation.

Unfortunately, it does not show male/female/children breakdown, but I submit that 300,000 number is not coming from a reliable source given the total number of visitors from Japan each year.

And actually, I just realized something. That article cited is from 2004. So I went out to the Philippines Tourism website and looked up the statistics from 2004.

Here is the Philippines Department of Tourism Website: http://www.visitmyphilippines.com/index.php

(If there are any questions as to the validity of that source, please see this website which has a .gov.ph domain. It links the http://www.visitmyphilippines.com/index.php page.

They have a spreadsheet you can download that breaks down visitors by country of residence.

Since the article is dated June 24, 2004, let's go back to the 2003 stats.

Arrivals by Country, 2003

So according to the Department of Tourism, Japanese visitors to the Philippines in 2003 was 322,896. So now the number becomes even more ridiculous. This means that 93% of all Japanese visitors to the Philippines were sex tourists. That "estimate" does not seem like it comes from a reliable source to me.

HurryTaken (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.