Talk:International Justice Mission

Untitled
this article seems undeservingly negative. what's the problem with such monies going to ijm. if they are willing to get out there and do the work, they are being effective. no one company or organization is going to put an end to the aids epidemic. we should commend them for their work and not let the fact that they are a fath based organization cause us to discredit their work in the world. --Focus on time (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2006

Recent edits
Hi, I want to make a few notes on recent edits by User:SONORAMA. Since you both have been active on this page, I wanted to loop you in as well.

Firstly, the editor changed the header Work in Thailand to Thailand Brothel Raids. The header Work in Thailand was originally added by Jaking01 on October 19, 2017 after our much-discussed effort to move content from a designated Criticism section to appropriate places within the article. Should SONORAMA's header remain, I ask that it be changed to sentence case per Manual_of_Style, not title case: Thailand brothel raids.

Secondly, the editor made edits to the second paragraph in the introduction. In this edit, the editor changed "IJM works" to "IJM claims", an edit that LoquaciousKraken removed, calling it "POV language". SONORAMA's edit also added a new sentence to say that IJM's raids of brothels "have led to the arrest and deportation of female sex workers whom IJM claimed to 'rescue'." Is this sentence necessary? The placement and wording regarding criticism of IJM throughout the article has been the topic of lengthy discussion and consensus building, and the previous wording has served as a summation of criticism of IJM for several years, and is now sourced to articles that mention specific criticism of IJM. The source used for the newly added content is a self-published source, the Shan Women's Action Network Newsletter. And It's worth noting that the source focused its concerns on the actions of a third organization, Trafcord, during and following the raid. I've raised this issue previously, which is OK, but I do not feel it belongs in the introduction.

This talk page and its archives serve as a good resource for the various discussions we've had about this article.

I have a conflict of interest so I am bringing this suggestion to the Talk page for others to consider. Best, SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Tricky. Phrasing in this article continually has to walk a rather fine line to maintain an unbiased tone. On point one, I actually agree that "Thailand brothel raids" (properly downcased) is preferable, as this appears to be the most high-profile issue and should be easy to identify by heading; neither is it misleading or derogatory, since AFAIK the term seems to have been freely used by IJM themselves. On point two, I agree that this sentence with its scare quotes pushes the tone a little too far off the midline for the lede; but again, most high-profile issue, so some lede presence seems okay. I'd suggest the more measured wording I have inserted now: " IJM's close coordination with third-world police agencies and the resulting treatment of affected sex workers have generated criticism from human rights and sex worker organizations over its mission and tactics." - contains the information but in a less suggestive manner. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help again, Elmidae. I appreciate your thoughtful response, especially on the points about maintaining an unbiased, neutral tone, and agree with the changes you made. Best, SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

IJM
Hello, why is IJM not busy with pro-life? Are unborn children not on the list of IJM? AND WHY NOT? Shalom Abewdejong (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)