Talk:Human trafficking/Archive 2

Against Canada
This article is so bull - it seems to single-out Canada but does not give any prominent reason(s) why Canada is recieving a failing grade or why this problem is worst there than anywhere else. The figures for human trafficking quoted within the article itself don't show human trafficking in Canada to be any higher than anywhere else, so why is Canada being singled out? Scott 110 20:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't. It also singles out the UK, Bangladesh and Russia. Chwyatt 08:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

http://saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?newsID=71752&cat=3
http://saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?newsID=71752&cat=3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.157.196 (talk) 04:57, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Extent
Coalition Against Trafficking in Women statistics are open to debate. But they have not been used. Those figures come from the State Department, not from Coalition Against Trafficking in Women.

I have not seen serious criticism of State Department methodology, and both the State Department and the article says that due to trafficking being an illegal activity, reliable data is difficult to come across. The best way to balance is to say “Due to the illegal nature of trafficking and differences in methodology, the exact extent is unknown.” Chwyatt (talk) 09:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have also been looking for any critique of the various figures knocking around. They vary so wildly with ridiculous extremes (from a few hundred from deniers to a few million from others).. The state dept and CIA figures are often quoted but I cant find anything on their methods, sampling etc and aparently, the CIA have always refused to divulge theirs. Can anyone shed any light?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catherinebrown (talk • contribs) 02:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The following article published September 23, 2007 on page A01 of the Washington Post contains information about the source of recent government estimates of the number persons supposedly trafficked into the U.S. each year. If you pursue additional sources, I think you find that these estimates are highly unreliable. The article is entitled Human Trafficking Evokes Outrage, Little Evidence: U.S. Estimates Thousands of Victims, But Efforts to Find Them Fall Short. It is available here:

Another frequently cited estimate suggests that approximately 300,000 American youth are at risk for commercial sexual exploitation, but the methodology to obtain this estimate is also highly debatable. This estimate comes from: Estes, R.J., & N. A. Weiner (2001). The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children In the U. S., Canada and Mexico, and the study is available online from the University of Pennsylvania here: Todd2 (talk) 04:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Trafficking in human beings in CIS
http://www.owl.ru/eng/research/thenatasha.htm Someone should check and verify all sources from this article. Sorry, I don't have enough time to do it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.135.237.18 (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Title
I find the current title very euphemistic. These people aren't merely being trafficked (moved), they are being enslaved. That is the real problem. Thus I would suggest renaming this article as Modern slavery or something of the like. 207.69.137.43 (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is one of definition. The common (wider public) understanding of the term trafficking is individuals transported against their will AND enslaved in forced labour, in a foreign location. This understanding could be synonymous with slavery.

However, there is now considerable confusion as the term is being applied to individuals who merely migrate to work in the sex industry - even if knowingly and willingly. In addition, the use of the phrase "internal trafficking" is being promoted which further misleads by removing the element of inter country movement. These re-definitions are driven a gender feminist approach which regards all people who sell sex as being enslaved or suffering from false consciousness. Other feminists regard this as hopelessly simplistic.

As it is highly unlikely that the majority of readers would regard someone who willingly moves from one city to another to sell sex as being enslaved, the use of the term "modern slavery" as a synonym for trafficking would be confusing. This is not because people trafficked to work against their will are not enslaved but that the term trafficking is now applied to people who are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.189.208 (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of UK - Vietnamese paragraph
I have removed this paragraph, as careful reading of operation keymer papers shows only that people were smuggled - there is insufficient evidence that people were trafficked. Operation pentameter only refers to a single Vietnamese and this has been changed to refering to Vietnamese in general.--Tayray (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

New form of human trafficking
In February, a travel agent in Ghana chartered a Ghana International Airlines aircraft on the pretext that a group of 'Ghanian' tourists would be spending two weeks in Barbados. The aircraft left Ghana around 1 Feb 08, and was supposed to return to Barbados to 1) deliver any group of 'tourists' and 2) take the first lot back to Ghana. The aircraft didn't arrive as expected on 15 February, and to this day (15 April 08) most of those 'tourists', who turned out end up coming from both Ghana and Nigeria, are still stranded in Barbados, with the Ghanian government dragging its heels on their return. The rest have basically left Barbados for other countries (not long after arriving there). Due to the fact many of these 'tourists' are now working in Barbados (construction, etc), and some have gone on the record that they don't want to go back to Ghana, they want to be allowed to stay in Barbados to work, it is now believed that this is a new form of human trafficking. I think this would make an interesting addition to the Human trafficking article, and could also help build a Barbados-Ghana relations article as well. Having little time to add this, I am posting this at the following: Talk:Human trafficking, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Sociology, WikiProject International relations, WikiProject African diaspora, WikiProject Human rights. Perhaps contributors to the Human trafficking article or wikiprojects could look at it further and include it in the article, as this hasn't gathered much attention outside of Barbados and Ghana, and if it is human trafficking, it will change the modus operandi of traffickers. Searches of google and google news for barbados+ghana will return plenty of results, mainly from Ghana or Barbados which can be used. --Россавиа Диалог 17:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Alleged criticism of Agustin's work
The following sentence was inserted and claimed to be supported by the reference Brendan O'Neill, The myth of trafficking, New Statesman, 27 March 2008:
 * Critics of Agustín have claimed that Agustín is as guilty of statistical manipulation for her ideological perspective.

I removed the statement for the following reasons: Properly referenced criticism of her book would be very welcome. AxelBoldt (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Statistical manipulation is scientific misconduct, a severe allegation, so a high-quality source is needed.
 * The New Statesman article itself does not contain the allegation.
 * Some reader comments attached to the New Statesman article on the paper's website are critical of Agustin's book, though I can't find a specific allegation of statistical manipulation there (or elsewhere).
 * In any case, a comment area on an open website cannot be used as a reliable source.


 * The work itself is highly questionable and could well be in breech of wikipedia’s recommendations on using sources. Just because something is written, does not make it so. We have a possible battle between those who may make a living exaggerating human trafficking, and those who make a living denying it. Each who put a hunger for attention and publicity above balanced analysis. Having been involved in this issue for ten years and read so much of this stuff, Agustín is just another example. There are so many books on human trafficking that the only way to sell one is to say "it’s a lie" or its "endemic slavery in every town". If an on-line version can be found, we can pick it apart.
 * Likewise, the New Statesman is notorious for spinning and selective use to support its editorial perspective. Just like any other magazine. That is how magazines and journalistic sociologists like Agustín make money. Agustín and O'Neill are not scientists, Agustín’s work is not a scientific study and the New Statesman is not a reputable journal. Chwyatt (talk) 07:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "We have a possible battle between those who may make a living exaggerating human trafficking, and those who make a living denying it." This statement seems to set up a false equality between "those who make a living exaggerating human trafficking and those who make a living denying it."  I know of very few if not no human beings currently employed by an organization dedicated to denying human trafficking.  On the other hard, the list of NGOs and international organizations declaring at high volume that human trafficking is the number one problem facing humanity today is not small. -RatSkrew (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The situation is not comparable with climate change (the exaggerators Vs the deniers). And unlike climate change, there are no organisations dedicated to saying there is no such thing as human trafficking (and trafficking in women in particular). But with regards to immigration debates and feminism debates, of which this issue touches, there are journalists and journalistic sociologists who know how to make a name for themselves. And often the only way to make a name for themselves is to oppose consensus opinion. There is no doubt that no one knows the extent of human trafficking. Any organisation, any sociologist, any journalist who writes with such certainty, should be treated with caution. Regardless of whether one is in the majority or minority camp, social research today is in such a poor state, and is such a saturated market. Chwyatt (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You now appear to have completely removed any reference to Augustins work. This appears to be a pattern in this article that you remove any entries which do not support your thesis on trafficking. The article is starting to look very poor in terms of neutral point of view. If research is applied which you do not support then counter it - do not merely delete it. Please reconsider or I will tag article NPOV disputed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.189.208 (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the editor above. The criticism of the so-called rescue industry is highly relevant to the human trafficking issue and thus deserves inclusion in the article. Deleting these criticisms supports a particular POV and thus gradually skews the article in a particular direction. The section about Agustíns criticism should be restored. If there should be any criticism of Agustín, it needs to be sourced per Wikipedias general guidelines. Alfons Åberg (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hold on a second, I’m not the only one guilty of double standards here. When I mentioned criticism of Agustín, it was removed for not having references. Yet references to her and criticisms of Operation Pentameter have not had any references attached. I don’t remove comments that are referenced. Add properly cited references and I won’t remove them.


 * Secondly, the problem Agustín’s journalistic work, is that having it as the sole criticism of trafficking is like having Ann Coulter as the sole criticism of liberalism, or Michael Crichton on global warming. Her work should not be restored unless it is referenced. Either directly to her work, so people can see what is wrong with it, or to a properly peer-reviewed academic article. The only reference I have seen is in a magazine with an anti-immigration agenda. This article is slightly off balanced. But unreferenced comments from a journalistic sociologist is no way to balance it. Chwyatt (talk) 07:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that the disproportionate concentration of sexual trafficking (in terms of resources and communications) at the expense of other more widespread forms is unhelpful and offensive. Is a person trafficked to work 18 hours a day, 7 days a week in a sweat shop less exploited merely because no sex is involved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.189.208 (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The reference to Augustins book and criticism of the trafficking figures is legitimate and referenced as inline text. This is acceptable as per Wiki policy on referencing and is directly paralleled in many works you quote above - some of which give figures (such as the UN figure) themselves derived from unreferenced work thus making it impossible to check the veracity of the numbers. To avoid duplicity I have restored the original reference to Augustins book - it does not say it agrees with her theory merely that such a theory exists. Given the flexibility other editors have shown with works you reference (most of the CATW data for a start) it would be unwise to continuously remove counter references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.136.127 (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don’t think I’ve added CATW figures. Several criticisms have rightly joined this article. Need to be careful though that the (un)balance does not shift the other way towards the deniers. Chwyatt (talk) 07:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Excessive trivia – TV shows
Wikipedia discourages excessive trivia. Films and TV series specifically about trafficking might just escape as non-trivia. But songs or minor plot lines in films or one off episodes in cop shows don’t. What’s more, probably every cop show in the world has had a trafficking episode. We can’t mention them all. Chwyatt (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But I think we should go a step further and delete the list in its entirety. Either that or create a list on a separate page. The list could include films, television programs, news magazine reports, and documentaries. It's a thought. Either way, this article needs to be shortened. If we include all media available that addresses human trafficking, this article will end up a mile long. I think it's time to clean it up a bit before it gets even more cluttered than it is now. Cindamuse (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Wiki page on human trafficking as ongoing project
Let me begin by introducing myself. I am a professor of international law & human rights and Special Rapporteur to UN.GIFT (United Nations Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking). My specialized area of scholarship (and passion) is human trafficking, contemporary slavery, forced labor and child soldiers. As a project of the Task Force on Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking that I chair at my university we plan on monitoring, adding and editing the English Wikipedia page on Human Trafficking and other related topics. We hope to create mirror pages on other language sites. We look forward to working with all of you interested in this very complex area of study.--Cdestree (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Welcome, look forward to it. Thias page does need some work. I used to work for the Home Office in the UK on this issue and have been an ocassional contributor here Chwyatt (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Caution
Considering this topic's official assessment as being of low importance;

Considering the relative infancy of the human trafficking paradigm;

Considering the rather extreme claims of HT advocates;

Considering the tendentious and/or vested nature of sources claiming massive criminal incidence of human trafficking and the risk of them interpreting other events for their own personal gain;

Considering the risk of misinforming the issue;

- We should avoid over-stating our case and using any source for factual confirmation. forestPIG(grunt) 15:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * and considering the rather extreme claims of HT denial and the vested interests of those who deny HT for their own agenda Chwyatt (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's highly debatable, Chwyatt, and in any event, pretty much a reflection of your POV. I am hereby asking that you adhere to Wikipedia standards of NPOV and verifiability and will be keeping an eye on this article to make sure this is adhered to. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course its my POV (and the comment I replied to was ‘highly debatable’). My point was, which you might have missed, the human trafficking debate is subject to bias and agendas on both sides. I did not dispute what ForesticPig said, only added that HT denial for vested interests and agendas also takes place. Anything and everything I post on the articles is within Wikipedia standards and appropriately sourced. Chwyatt (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to know what the supposed "agenda" of someone like Laura Agustin is. On the other hand, I think I think its pretty clear what the agenda is of CATW, Melissa Farley, Laura Lederer, etc, who started out as anti-vice crusaders before rebranding themselves as "anti-slavery" activists. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On the one hand, there are those who exaggerate the scale of human trafficking (HT) because…
 * 1) they are part of the anti-vice lobby who talk of the “evils of prostitution”.
 * 2) the so called rescue industry. Some organisations, set up with the best of intentions, find themselves exaggerating the scale of HT
 * 3) some extremist feminists who see society as a continuing persecution of women, and the trafficking of women is another example for them


 * On the other hand, those that deny or downplay the scale of HT do so because…
 * 1) The fact that forced prostitution and HT takes place in countries with liberal attitudes to prostitution is an inconvenient fact to prostitution liberalisers
 * 2) amazingly, there are some feminists who don’t like organised interventions in ‘women’s matters’, and don’t like organisations or governments “rescuing women” even if there are cases of trafficking of women. This is an attitude common amongst American conservative feminists
 * 3) some with an anti-immigration agenda don't like human trafficking. They want to see all movement’s of people as voluntary and see HT as weakening a strong anti-immigration position


 * And sadly, amongst the popular political and sociological media, controversy sells. You are more likely to sell a book or publish an article by exaggerating or denying human trafficking than offering sober, uncontroversial analysis. Every major political or social issue will have different interpretations. And different interpretations always lead to different agendas. Chwyatt (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Its clear to me that with regards to point number 2 & 3 that you don't even remotely have your facts straight. Yes, there are a lot of feminists who indeed are very opposed to the "raid and rescue" intervention. These are feminists associated with the sex workers rights movement and with NGO's that directly work with prostitutes in places like Cambodia. They base their opposition upon the fact that Cambodian prostitutes themselves have spoken against governmental raids, saying that it has essentially forced the "rescued" women into the criminal justice system and that it has broken up prostitutes collectives and networks that were essential for those choosing to remain in prostitution to protect themselves against predatory pimps and traffickers. And I don't know where the hell you get off calling such feminists "conservative". If there's anybody who could be considered "conservative" feminists, it would clearly be CATW, Laura Lederer, and other "abolitionists" who are closely aligned with evangelicals and neo-cons in that movement, who advocate a distinct "change from above" approach to sex work, and have actively tried to block self-organized efforts by sex workers who don't tow the abolitionist party line.


 * In regard to point number 3, what you've said above doesn't even make sense. The anti-immigration crowd is generally among the human trafficking exaggerators, as it gives them yet another argument why immigrants are not in the host country legitimately. Its no co-incidence that the most common outcome of anti-HT "raid and rescue" in destination countries is immediate deportation of trafficked workers/slaves back to their country of origin, typically right back into the social situation that got them trafficked to begin with. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On point 2, you and I a referring to two different groups of feminists. On point 3, if you read The Spectator (British conservative leaning magazine), especially in the late 1990s/early 2000s, almost every week it ran an anti-immigration article. It then took an anti-human trafficking line, because it saw it as weakening a hard-line stance on immigration. There is an example of it somewhere on this discussion page. I suspect its editors saw those who talked about human trafficking as being wishy-washy liberals.
 * My basic point was, all political and social issues have extreme views and agendas from different sides. HT is no different. When I worked at the Home Office on this very issue, I’d read and heard voices crying that human trafficking was on a massive (therefore exaggerated) scale and others who said it didn’t exist, a fabrication of the so called ‘rescue industry’.
 * And, if you are going to start being rude, I'm not going to continue discussing this. Chwyatt (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved here from the article
I've moved the following here from the article:

citing in support: Callimachi, Rukmini. Child maid trafficking spreads from Africa to US, Associated Press, Dec. 28, 2008

The cited item contains the following:

The 10,000 and one-third'' figures can be attributed to the National Human Rights Center, as can the assertion that some of these are children. The rest appears to be the opinion of an anonymous AP staff writer. This info might be appropriate for inclusion in the article, but it is misattributed. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Would removing the portion beginning with "Once behind the walls..." keep it properly sourced? Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten this slightly and put back into the article. I've placed it in the Extent section rather than in the lead. I would have done this originally, but I was in a big rush at that time. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good summary with a better location. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Grammer Edits Needed
"from which escape is both difficult or dangerous" should be changed to "from which escape is both difficult and dangerous" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.180.144 (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good catch. Feel free to fix these yourself in the future, it's actually quicker than a talk page comment.  Add the comment to the Edit Summary so everyone can see what you did.  aremisasling (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Extent split
I split the extent section by continent to break it up and smooth the flow a bit. Most of it fit that paradigm already, but some of it, especially in the main section, doesn't fit perfectly wording-wise. Russia, of course, is always an issue given it's span over two continents. Fortunately the section about former Iron Curtain nations deals primarily with Europe, so that is a cleaner break than I expected when I first skimmed the article. There could be some improvements made on the syntax of references as well, but at least there are refs. Good page though, much needed regardless of the controversy on scope. aremisasling (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a note as well on the edit. I didn't change much content-wise, just split it up.  The only content change I made was to modify the wording on the future group reference to split it between the section summary and the North America section.  The heart of the paragraphs is intact.  Given all of the moves this may not have been apparent in a diff.  aremisasling (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Note on NPOV corrections
Be sure when correcting POV issues on an article to avoid editing in POV statements from the opposing side. The idea is to make the article neutral, not equally representative of POV. It's not a debate forum, it's supposed to be an encyclopedic entry. That said, it is important to get both viewpoints represented. But to accuse advocacy groups of propaganda is as sensationalist and POV as it is to limit the definition of human trafficking only to the illegal forms. A better route would be to add sections on legitimate trafficking or even make separate headings for legal and illegal forms. You can even include a section detailing notable opposition veiwpoints. But keep inflamatory labels like "propagandists" to quotes from sources in the appropriate sections, and not accusations made in the article itself. aremisasling (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Human Trafficking definition
There seems to be an issue here of definition of human trafficking. I can't find any source that refers to human trafficking as anything other than an illegal trade. This includes UN definitions, definitions by the EU, Canada, and the US, and a search of scholarly articles that use the term. I found not one case where it was used to reference the legal migration of individuals. As a matter of technicality, the recent edit of the intro definition would be correct. My instinct on this one is that, while it may be the absolute literal definition, the legal migration of people for economic means would more qualify as an innovation in definition than the other way around. Honestly, I'm interested to see if the editor that reworded the intro has any references for their edit because frankly, it doesn't seem to be the case that it is used at all in that sense. If there aren't any references made to support the change, I think it needs to be reverted. aremisasling (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...


 * Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, Republic of the Philippines. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure if you misunderstood and thought I was trying to refute the original definition in the intro or the recent edit. I know the definition you gave.  It's the definition that was already there.  The issue is with the recent edit which makes the claim in the edit summary that the original definition in the intro and by association the definition you gave are examples of propagandist thinking.  My stance was that, in direct contradiction to the editor's summary, the definition of human trafficking that appears to be generally accepted by advocacy groups, nations, and scholars alike is the original illegal sense of the term.  It just seems like you are trying to support my statement which confuses me slightly.  aremisasling (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't been tracking changes&mdash;I just reacted to seeing this article pop up on my watchlist. I didn't look at the history, but see that the WP:LEDE says, "Human trafficking is the commerce and trade in the movement or migration of people, legal and illegal, ...", and see that you said, "... I can't find any source that refers to human trafficking as anything other than an illegal trade.  ...". The snippet which I quoted above isn't an example of "propagandast thinking"&mdash;at least it does not strike me so. That snippet is an extract the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, Republic Act No. 9208, which is current law in the Philippines. I provided a link to the full text above." OK, looking at it again, since this law does criminalizes certain acts, the acts which it criminalizes are by definition illegal trade. Id does seem to me, though, that it might be overbroad. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I mistated what I was looking for. The editor in question inserted wording into the preamble that suggested that human trafficking does not imply some form of force, coersion, or deception or abuse of the persons involved.  In short, they were saying that any kind of economic migration where money is exchanged is considered people trafficking regardless of circumstances.  I'd contend that by even the widest definition, yours included, there is a distinct sense that the trafficker either forces, deceives or abuses the persons being trafficked.  They went further in labelling anyone who limits it only to unwilling or abusive situation propagandist, which is why I brought that word in.
 * I did correct it to be far less inflamatory, but I think the distinction is still a big one between a violation of human rights and simple economic migration. No definition I have read seems to allow for the wider definition.  I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that.  You certainly answered the original request I posed in that it isn't necessarily illegal in all jurisdictions.  I'm not sure if this clarifies the point any.  aremisasling (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The word "traffick(ing)" i think, refers originaly to any "dealing", "transportation" or "commerse", allthough it also has a meaning/connotation in "illegal dealing" (look it up in a good dictionary). That means human trafficking is basicly just another word for trading in people. Threre is fundamentally no differense between this and slave trade / forced labour. The differens on the other hand lies in jurisdiction and the fact that it is being illegal/criminal, i.e. a veiw and reaction on slave trade by society (and thereby the manner in witch it is conducted, wich is by no means insignificant). If this is an articel about (international) law, the UN-definition should be used. If a broader perspective is wanted, the definition should be opened, to "illegal trading in humans" ,"illegal slave trade", "illegal forced labour" etc. 22. oct 2009 - Alenepaagata (norwegian wikipedia)

Article Comment
this article is written in such an unprofessionally empathetic way it's almost disgusting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.110.133 (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)