Talk:History of slavery in Utah



--2600:1702:2E60:6050:D135:1A61:6FD2:66C7 (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 'Bold text--2600:1702:2E60:6050:D135:1A61:6FD2:66C7 (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)'Bold text''Bold text --2600:1702:2E60:6050:D135:1A61:6FD2:66C7 (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Untitled
The introductory paragraph ends with "Today, slavery continues in Utah in the form of human trafficking and is very prevalent.[1]". While referenced article does quote Tammy Atikan of the Utah Attorney's Office using the phrase "very prevalent", I would argue that the number of cases of human trafficking in Utah does not justify the use of the word prevalent. Prevalent is defined as "widespread in a particular area at a particular time". See https://humantraffickinghotline.org/state/utah for information on the number of cases. I recommend removing the use of this term. CarlGrundstrom (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Carl Grundstrom


 * Those numbers are just those received by the human trafficking hotline. That doesn't count the number that law enforcement were able to recover, and of course not the total number of cases of slavery that go unnoticed, which is often the case.  If you read the report on Salt Lake by Shared Hope International, one of the criticism is that unlike in other states, Salt Lake law enforcement officials are not trained to recognize human trafficking, so many victims of human trafficking are often treated as juvenile delinquents and are not counted in the total number.  Also, according to the Utah Trafficking in Persons Task Force, "victims rarely come forward to seek help because of language barriers, fear of the traffickers, and/or fear of law enforcement".   So really, if 120 calls a year to the hotline alone (which of course does not include other ways of reaching out for help) is considered "rare" compared to the total human trafficking victims, then I think Tammy Atkins knows what she is talking about when she says it is very prevalent.  We should stick with the sources we have and not edit professional assessments based off of our personal interpretation of the data. FreePeoples (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't actually think Ms Atkins used the correct word, regardless of how much an expert she may be in the field. Prevalent means 1. widespread; of wide extent or occurrence; in general use or acceptance, 2. having the superiority or ascendancy. Human trafficking in Utah is clearly not "prevalent", much less "very prevalent". It is not widespread (i.e. only a very small percentage of the population is involved in it). It is not not in general use or accepted by society (it's illegal and no one thinks it's a good idea except perhaps the perpetrators). It's not the superior or ascendant method of practice. This isn't personal interpretation of the data, it's a correction of a term that was used in error (or possibly in exaggeration). If you think that exaggerating or incorrectly misstating the facts will draw more attention to a social wrong that needs attention, I would disagree. When I first saw this term misused, my first inclination was to hold the entire Wiki article under suspicion of exaggeration. If we want to confront and solve social issues, distorting information is not the best method, especially on a site like Wikipedia which holds objectivity and balance as worthy goals. We need to find good references, not ones that use highly "hyped" terms. CarlGrundstrom (talk) 01:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Carl Grundstrom

Let me propose a compromise. What if we changed the sentence to "Human Trafficking, the modern form of slavery, is an ongoing concern according to state officials [1]". CarlGrundstrom (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)CarlGrundstrom


 * I want Wikipedia to most accurately and honestly convey information, and please do not assume anything else. I think we disagree on the status of slavery in Utah, not the aims of Wikipedia.  Let's stick to discussing what word best describes the extent of trafficking.  I believe calling it a "concern" doesn't properly convey Ms. Atkins' intent.  They were "concerned" over the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart, even though that was one unusual, though noteworthy, instance.  Acceptance is only one definition of prevalent, and while I agree slavery is not generally accepted in Utah, "acceptance" is only one definition of prevalent.  Diseases can be very prevalent, and diseases are not "accepted" by people.  There have been major busts of large trafficking rings in every major populated area, and labor trafficking busts in the rural areas, and the busts only indicate the tip of the iceberg. Most slavery cases go unidentified. Whatever we do, we need to accurately convey the intent of Ms. Atkins statement.  I think she "intended" to convey that there was a lot of trafficking going on in Utah, and not simply that any trafficking would be a "concern".  Eventually, I would like to break this off into a separate page like other states. FreePeoples (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, prevalent can be used to describe a disease, but doing so implies many such cases, not the occasional one. I think using this term to describe human trafficking in Utah is a classic example of hyperbole and exaggeration. Quite possibly she was speaking off the cuff, perhaps she simply meant to indicate that it is "more common than you think". It was a quote picked up by a local newspaper, and not a formal statement by the Attorney General's office. I do not think we do anyone any favors by repeating it. Let's replace it by a term that more accurately states the extent of human trafficking in Utah, with an appropriate reference link. Perhaps by comparing it to how common other crimes are, crimes like murder, kidnapping, would be a better indicator. Here is a link to the 2014 Utah Crime Report: http://site.utah.gov/dps-criminal/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2016/02/2014-Crime-in-Uah.pdf. It lists 11 arrests for Human Trafficking (out of about 100,000 total arrests). The fact that there are 11 arrests is perhaps alarming (perhaps because there should have been more arrests given the extent of the problem, and also because we'd like there to be no such crimes committed), but given these numbers it's not accurately described as a prevalent crime. In fact, it's one of the least prevalent crimes in Utah. The Utah crime report for 2013 doesn't break out human trafficking as a separate category. The preliminary report for 2015 lists zero arrests for this category. The report for 2016 is not yet available. If you still think "prevalent" is an appropriate term, then I suggest we engage a Wikipedia moderator to help resolve the dispute. CarlGrundstrom (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)CarlGrundstrom
 * Yes, I think human trafficking is more than just the occasional one in Utah. Convictions in human trafficking are incredibly hard.  Often, they will get convicted for some other crime (such as aiding in prostitution, or labor violations) and don't get "counted" as human trafficking.  Worldwide, they estimate there are 21 million victims of human trafficking, and yet there were only 4,443 convictions.  Utah has a known problem of not training their police forces to recognize human trafficking, and convicting victims of crimes.  For example, the report you gave me showed 10 times as many prostitution charges as human trafficking, many of which were minors.  Minors who are involved in prostitution are by definition victims of human trafficking, even if there is no force, fraud or cooercion, which are required for adults involved in prostitution.  Other reports suggest 80% of prostitutes are victims of human trafficking. I don't think Ms Atkins used "very prevalent" to describe "occasional". I think she used very prevalent because she was aware of the issues and wanted to convey how widespread the problem is in Utah despite the relatively low number of arrests. FreePeoples (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Until we can agree on an appropriate term, I have removed all references to the word "prevalent" from the article. If you want to use this term, you need to back it up with hard data, not conjecture. I do appreciate the work you have put into writing this article. The remainder of the article appears to be well researched and objective. Regards. CarlGrundstrom (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)CarlGrundstrom
 * I have changed the word "very prevalent" to "high rate" and added more references, based off Leo Lucey's assessment that it occurs at a "surprisingly high rate". This is watered-down, hopefully correcting any hyperbole.  I still think professional assessments published by reliable resources should already be considered sufficient, and I think assuming they have resorted to hyperbole is conjecture on our part.  Let's continue trying to hammer this out, and hopefully we can restore a version that is more faithful to the original source.  Right now, I would rather focus on working on supporting data. FreePeoples (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Editorial Content
This article should, like all articles on Wikipedia, be encyclopedic rather than editorial in content. It needs improvement. It's hard to know where to start, but I have requested citations for two editorial statements, removed one instance of editorial language, and will remove the statement from the Deseret News since it has been misrepresented here. The original is from the Deseret News, "Important Decision," May 20, 1857, 5, and involves the question of federal vs. states rights to decide questions of slavery and plural marriage in the territories, and does not address the international slave trade, as was claimed here. KHearts (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am a bit confused about what the issue was. This section was removed with the reasoning that "it did not contain content claimed here":
 * The Deseret News, the main newspaper at the time, announced its support for the South's attempts, in the early 1850s, to recommence the international slave trade, and wrote that "Congress has no power over the question of Slavery in the Territories and of course none over the question of polygamy. Those can now flourish wherever the people will it in any of the Territories of the United States and Uncle Sam can attend to his own business without troubling himself any further about them.
 * The source referenced says this:
 * The Deseret News announced its support for the South's attempts, in the early 1850s, to recommence the international slave trade, and crowed that "Congress has no power over the question of Slavery in the Territories and of course none over the question of polygamy. Those can now flourish wherever the people will it in any of the Territories of the United States and Uncle Sam can attend to his own business without troubling himself any further about them."
 * It is almost word for word, and I would say is more of an issue of plagiarism than not containing content. Similarly, the reference for the following quote was removed, with the statement that "it did not support claim".
 * When the Civil War broke out, Utah sided with the North and many slave owners returned to Southern States because they were worried that they would lose their slaves.
 * The reference says this:
 * When the war broke out, many slaveholders left this Territory with their slaves, and returned to the Southern States; because they believed by so doing, the risk of losing them would not be so great.
 * Again I am confused by the reasoning that it was unsupported by the reference. FreePeoples (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

First, the Deseret News article. The citation was to a book, Bear River Massacre by Kass Fleisher, that misrepresented the content of the newspaper article. The Deseret News did not announce "its support for the South's attempts ... to recommence the international slave trade." Check the newspaper article itself. It is available here: https://newspapers.lib.utah.edu/details?id=2575626#children_2575626 The article does not support Fleisher's claim. Nor does the reputable literature on the subject, and as of today, the most reputable source is the work of Ronald Coleman of the University of Utah.

Second, the removal of the Broad Ax article to support the claim that "many slaveholders left this Territory with their slaves, and returned to the Southern States; because they believed by so doing, the risk of losing them would not be so great." Nowhere in the Broad Ax article is there such information. A citation can only be used to support information a source actually contains. KHearts (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok. So the first issue wasn't that source didn't contain the content, but that the source itself was dubious and inaccurately portrayed the Deseret News original intent. I only had access to the Bear River Massacre, and after reading the original Deseret News, I agree that Fleisher was stretching, which puts the whole workmanship into question.  But I read the Broad Ax article.  I tried to change the text to reflect the source, which says "When the war broke out, many slaveholders left this Territory with their slaves, and returned to the Southern States; because they believed by so doing, the risk of losing them would not be so great."  I still don't understand what this is a problem. FreePeoples (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Apologies. You're correct: that is from the article. The problem is that it didn't happen. It's impossible to know if the reporter from the Broad Ax misunderstood the Bankheads, or whether they remembered things wrong. KHearts (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Confusion in lede
In the lede, there is this sentence "After the Mexican–American War, Utah became part of the United States and slavery was officially legalized in Utah Territory on February 4, 1852...". However, the article on Utah says "It became the 45th state admitted to the U.S. on January 4, 1896".

So either Utah became a state sometime before 1852, as "Utah Territory" or something is wrong here.-- Auric   talk  21:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Utah Territory (1850-1896) was one of the organized incorporated territories of the United States, but did not have the status of a U.S. state. Dimadick (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)