Talk:International Justice Mission/Archive 1

Updating IJM page March 2015
Dear Editors - After a thorough review and marketing rebrand of our organization, IJM Editor has updated IJM's Wikipedia page to include the most recent data about our work, and other new brand elements such as our updated logo, language and vision descriptions. Among the updates, we have included most recent data from our 2013 annual report, information and third party endorsements from a recently published book The Locust Effect, and recent awards and media appearances, etc. Now that we have brought our IJM page up-to-date, future edits will more often fall under the Wikipedia "minor edit" classification.

In so updating, we continue to strive to comply with all of Wikipedia's guidelines. We will review for neutral point of view, and appreciate your guidance on this matter.

Regarding copy/paste content in your first flag - IJM did not borrow or copy material from the Web site you mention - Christians on the Left (http://www.christiansontheleft.org.uk/everyday_violence) - but rather, that Web site used IJM's language, descriptions and case studies available to the public on our Web site and in our annual report and other materials, to better inform their readers of our work and of the devastating effects of violence against the poor. We have listed the Web site under Wikipedia:Mirrors per your policy, though their content/story may be considered less a mirror of Wikipedia content (their article preceded this latest page update), and more a spotlight on our material & data available for the past several years online. Please let us know if we have remedied this flag - We greatly appreciate your support and counsel. IJMEditor (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox edits
Hi, I'm Sterling, International Justice Mission's digital marketing manager. I joined Wikipedia to help improve this article and others relating to International Justice Mission and its work. To that end, I put together some updates for the outdated infobox. Below I have posted markup language for a new infobox that includes these updates:
 * The correct number of field offices is 17, not 18. Also, listing the individual countries was unruly, so I listed the regions where we operate.
 * Updated staff
 * Updated endowment
 * I also added citations for its field offices, partner offices, staff and endowment. While I know Wikipedia prefers independent, third-party sources, I understand there are places where primary sources are preferred. Primary sources work best in the cases where I used them for the infobox for basic details.

I know I have a conflict of interest and I'm here to play by the book. Rather than edit the article myself, I will continue to bring suggestions to the discussion page for other Wikipedians to review and edit. Best, SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ Oposattta Kamata   (chat)  05:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Kansiime (Oposattta Kamata). I marked this edit request as complete. Stay tuned for more requests to come. Best, SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Governance and financials edit
As promised I am back with another request. This time I propose developing Financial information into a new section called Governance and financials to give more depth on IJM's organizational structure and budget breakdown. If you agree to add Governance and financials to the live article, I ask that you also remove the Funding and grants subsection under History as those details are included.

International Justice Mission’s global headquarters is based out of Washington, D.C. It is governed by a 13-member international board of directors, which includes founder and CEO Gary Haugen. As of 2016, Nicole Bibbins Sedaca chairs the board.

On June 1, 2016, the independent charity watchdog Charity Navigator gave International Justice Mission four stars with an overall score of 92.15 out of 100. The organization scored 88.91 for its finances, and 100 for accountability and transparency.

According to a 2015 independent auditor’s report by RSM US, International Justice Mission generated $51.56 million in total support and revenue in 2015. The organization’s expenses totaled $52.25 million. Year-end net assets were $20.03 million.

International Justice Mission’s 2015 funding came primarily from individuals (71 percent), in addition to foundations and businesses (12 percent), IJM partner offices (6 percent), churches (4 percent), gifts-in-kind (4 percent), government grants (1 percent) and other sources (2 percent). Programs accounted for 75 percent of expenses, whereas general and administrative costs equalled 12 percent of expenses and fundraising totaled 13 percent.

Among its grants, the United States Department of Labor awarded International Justice Mission a three-year cooperative agreement on September 30, 2002. The nearly $703,000 grant helped implement the Thailand Sex Trafficking Task Force: Prevention and Placement program. Then-U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell provided the organization with a $1 million grant to combat sex trafficking in Southeast Asia in 2004. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation awarded a $5 million grant in 2006. On December 14, 2011, the Google Foundation awarded $11.5 million to organizations fighting modern slavery. Among the groups to receive those funds were International Justice Mission, BBC World Service Trust, ActionAid India and Aide et Action.

And here's the markup language:

== Governance and financials ==

International Justice Mission’s global headquarters is based out of Washington, D.C. It is governed by a 13-member international board of directors, which includes founder and CEO Gary Haugen. As of 2016, Nicole Bibbins Sedaca chairs the board.

On June 1, 2016, the independent charity watchdog Charity Navigator gave International Justice Mission four stars with an overall score of 92.15 out of 100. The organization scored 88.91 for its finances, and 100 for accountability and transparency.

According to a 2015 independent auditor’s report by RSM US, International Justice Mission generated $51.56 million in total support and revenue in 2015. The organization’s expenses totaled $52.25 million. Year-end net assets were $20.03 million.

International Justice Mission’s 2015 funding came primarily from individuals (71 percent), in addition to foundations and businesses (12 percent), IJM partner offices (6 percent), churches (4 percent), gifts-in-kind (4 percent), government grants (1 percent) and other sources (2 percent). Programs accounted for 75 percent of expenses, whereas general and administrative costs equalled 12 percent of expenses and fundraising totaled 13 percent.

Among its grants, the United States Department of Labor awarded International Justice Mission a three-year cooperative agreement on September 30, 2002. The nearly $703,000 grant helped implement the Thailand Sex Trafficking Task Force: Prevention and Placement program. Then-U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell provided the organization with a $1 million grant to combat sex trafficking in Southeast Asia in 2004. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation awarded a $5 million grant in 2006. On December 14, 2011, the Google Foundation awarded $11.5 million to organizations fighting modern slavery. Among the groups to receive those funds were International Justice Mission, BBC World Service Trust, ActionAid India and Aide et Action.

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) 14:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Kansiime (Oposattta Kamata), would you be able to review this edit request? You helped with a previous request of mine to update the infobox in July. I'm looking to give a little more depth on International Justice Mission's structure and budget. Please let me know if you have questions or want to discuss further. Best, SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * On a note - this is not my area at all, so I am reluctant to implement the edits before someone experienced in the subject area has had a look; but the material seems uncontroversial, well referenced and neutrally presented. If this request has not been addressed by the end of this week, I shall be bold and implement it. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs)

I have now implemented the above edit request with minor formatting changes. This included removing the "Funding" subsection from the "History" section, as requested, since the material is now covered in greater detail. As one item of information about the organization's origins doesn't make for much of a history, I renamed the section "Origins". There was one statement included in that section that looks as if it would belong with the extended funding info:

"IJM is a partner on a large United States Agency for International Development's Counter Trafficking in Persons grant, managed by Winrock International."

but appears not to be covered in the new material (and no source was given). I've removed it for the time being; if someone can provide a source and wants to incorporate this, please do.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Elmidae, I was just writing a note letting you know that I am available should you have any questions, but it looks like you have this. Thank you so much! I have been looking for a good third-party independent source to verify the United States Agency for International Development's Counter Trafficking in Persons grant you mentioned above. Hopefully I can find a useful source and that bit can be reincorporated into the article. I will be back soon with more updates similar to what I have proposed here. Thanks again for handling this edit request. Best, SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

History edit
Hi again, I uploaded a draft of a new and improved History section on my user page. The Origin section (which was until recently named History) in the live article is not much of a history of International Justice Mission. My proposal delivers a historical overview of the organization and major milestones. I incorporated some of the criticisms to IJM's work, too. I agree with this essay that says it is best when criticisms are dealt with properly in the appropriate portions of articles, not in designated Criticism sections; ultimately, I hope we can work toward this and delete the Criticism section altogether, but will leave that for another request.

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) 13:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Leaving a note for Kansiime and Elmidae. Is there any interest in reviewing this edit request? As noted previously, the Origin section does not provide much of a history of International Justice Mission. Thank you for considering! Best, SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I shall go through it tonight - sorry, bit busy at the mo :) (still hoping that someone into whose special sphere of interest this falls with pitch in as well, though) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ In the absence of objections, I have now implemented the above edit request with only minor formatting changes (and consolidating a few duplicate refs), as it appears to be comprehensive, balanced and neutral. Also very well written; thanks to for providing well-structured material. - I believe there is now some minor overlap between the "History" and "Criticism" sections. If the eventual aim is to integrate the latter into the former, more work is necessary. I would again urge some editors with a background in the topic to engage with this. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * While I agree with the general idea moving information from the "criticism" section to other sections, and eventually eliminating "criticism" as a section, the "History" section as authored by IJM is unacceptable. Some obvious flaw: the hagiographic information about the organization's founder (who has his own wikipedia page), the use of exaggerated, unsubstantiated counts of victims "rescued", sourced by only by the organization itself, and the reduction of criticism of the organization's tactics from specifics to a few mild, general criticisms. SONORAMA (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Elmidae, for bringing my History section live. Are you aware of any Wikiprojects where I might find other Wikipedia editors interested helping with these updates? That way I'm not putting all the burden on you!


 * Well, there's a Wikiproject Human Rights and a Wikiproject Christianity; I see you have already posted to those for your first request. Honestly, wikiprojects often aren't all that - many people join them but few use them as an actual hub, or monitor them closely. But it's probably a good idea to continue doing that. It's a bit of a shame that COI editors who play nice tend to get stuck in that extra-slow requested edits queue... -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, ultimately I think the article will work best if things from the Criticism section are incorporated throughout the article. If there is consensus that specifics on the criticism remain in the article, I would recommend they be incorporated into the body of the article and eliminating the Criticism section. The reason I left out specifics in my proposed History is because the Criticism section already exists, and I did not want there to be undue weight. Also, while I disagree with the removal of the background info on Haugen's founding of the organization (the backstory into the organization's founding is included in neutral, third-party sources), I think it is important that this well-sourced sentence go back in there to show that IJM provides evidence to law enforcement: The organization works to compile evidence that is handed over to government authorities to prosecute slave owners and pimps. Finally, I note that some of your edits have tended to be more critical or negative regarding IJM, SONORAMA, while my proposals are obviously coming from the organization: perhaps it is best for us to allow other editors to comment and make the final decisions here, since they can find the middle ground. Best, SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

IJM in Thailand - Began in 1998 or 2001? When did focus change to Karin people?
The article has two contradictory statements regarding IJM in Thailand.

Under "Activities": The work of IJM began in Thailand in 1998. Under "Criticism": IJM began operations in Thailand in the year 2000.

So which is it? Anyone have any sources?

In addition, it appears that IJM's focus in Thailand changes from brothel raids and arresting sex workers to documenting Karin people as citizens of Thailand. It appears this may have happened because of, or in response to, documented problems over IJM "rescues" of sex workers who clearly did not want to be rescued. Has IJM or any other source documented when and why it changed its focus in Thailand? SONORAMA (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if sourcing exists for what you are asking, but I wanted to respond to explain the changes from IJM's perspective.


 * IJM Chiang Mai (Thailand) opened in 2000 addressing sex trafficking and ended the project in 2007 as we saw a reduction in the sale of minors trafficked for commercial sexual exploitation in our project area of Northern Thailand. While addressing sex trafficking of minors, IJM came across cases of hill tribe ethnic minority victims who lacked legal citizenship status in Thailand. Starting in 2002, with a grant from the US Department of Labor, IJM began helping Thai-born hill tribe minority tribes with accessing their citizenship right. The Culture Unit of UNESCO has identified lack of citizenship as the single greatest risk factor in Thailand for highland tribal girls and women to be trafficked or otherwise exploited:.


 * In Northern Thailand, IJM addresses citizenship rights and child sexual assault. The hill tribe ethnic minorities living in remote locations were unaware of how to register and access their privileges as Thai citizens. While this made them vulnerable to exploitation, including trafficking, it also prevented them from travelling, legal protection, earning a fair wage, accessing employment opportunities, health care and schooling for children. IJM Chiang Mai partners with District, Provincial and Central government officials to advocate for and correct the legal status of the eligible members of hill tribe minority ethnic groups. IJM stepped in with the child sexual assault prevention project in 2012 as the child sexual assaults being reported from among the minority community were not being addressed appropriately or effectively.


 * I hope that clarifies things for you. Best, SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, there are a couple of different dates mentioned in the article so I'm glad to focus on documenting one. SONORAMA (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Activities edit
Hi, I have uploaded a new draft on my user page for others to review. Editors will see in this draft that I propose a merger of the Activism and Activities sections. It seems to me the two go hand-in-hand. My proposal cuts back on material from the live article that is unsourced or references primary sources and press releases. What I am looking to do is give an updated and accurate portrait of IJM's efforts.

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) 15:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello SE. Can you check your reference for the following statement: "IJM claims to have rescued more than 28,000 victims of abuse across the globe as of 2016.[12]"?  Right now the reference goes to a page linking to several years' financial documents.  It would be more useful to go to the specific document that is the source of that number and explains the methodology behind that count.


 * Also, just wondering - does IJM account for persons negatively affected by its interventions? SONORAMA (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If you scroll down to the bottom of the page referenced you should see "More than 28,000 people relieved from oppression". That figure is also used on IJM's general fact sheet, if you think it better to use that instead.


 * To answer your other question, IJM is very strategic and intentional to ensure everything that it does leads to positively impacting the lives of all those concerned, even perpetrators. To ensure that the perpetrator's human rights are not abused, IJM won't name them publicly until they are convicted and sentenced.


 * We sustain our engagement with those victims who refuse IJM's aftercare services after a rescue. Our staff meet and keep engagement in case they change their minds and decide to accept our support. But we do not force them. We remain committed to all parties. Best, SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * and With the holidays over, I was wondering if either of you have an opportunity to review this request to merge and update the Activities and Activism sections. Best, SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hope you had great holidays SE. Your draft is solid.  There are a few items that I will research and may edit further - in particular the claim of 28,000 "rescued" seems specious given that several source indicate that some of those "rescued" were adult sex workers who did not want to be rescued and suffered as a result of IJM's interventions.  I suspect this is why IJM is so controversial in development circles.  Nonetheless, your draft is an improvement over the rather disjointed paragraphs currently in the article.  So I'll copy it over and we can refine it further later on. SONORAMA (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, meant to look at this earlier. I agree, this looks good (exemplary sourcing again, thank you). I suggest implementing it and then fiddling with the live version. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, SONORAMA and Elmidae, for reviewing this request and making the edits. Best, SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Introduction edits
Following some recent edits, some details were added to the introduction that belong more appropriately within the main body of the article. Specifically, the detail about IJM's hiring practices and the daily prayer reported by the New Yorker reference. If the details should stay, I propose moving these back into the article body text again, perhaps in Activities:


 * IJM hires only practicing Christians; its job listings include "Mature orthodox Christian faith as defined by the Apostles’ Creed" among stated requirements. Workdays at all offices begin with a half-hour of stillness and a half-hour of corporate prayer later in the day as part of their spiritual formation practices.

As noted above, I have a conflict of interest as an employee of International Justice Mission, so I am bringing this request to the Talk page for others to review. Best, SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * That seems reasonable, especially since the lede section is supposed to present a summary of material that is used in the main body, and the current form only has that information in the lede. Implemented.


 * , may I ask what happened with the submission to peer review? It seems to me that the submission never actually made it onto the list of open request, but went straight to the archive - which looks like either a bug or a an error in submission to me? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for editing the introduction. As for the peer review, thanks for the heads up. I am not sure why it did not post to the list of open requests. I left a note on Wikipedia talk:Peer review to bring the problem to the attention of editors. Best, SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Final edit request
Hi, I'm back with one last edit request for updating the article. As I see it, there are two issues left to address: the introduction and merger of details from Criticisms throughout the article.

Let's start with the introduction. I propose rewriting the introduction to make it more concise, while correcting details and adding wikilinks.

International Justice Mission is an international, faith-based non-governmental 501(c)(3) organization focused on human rights, law and law enforcement. Founded by lawyer Gary Haugen in 1997, it is the world's largest international anti-slavery organization. It works to combat sex trafficking, child sexual assault, cybersex trafficking, forced labor slavery, property grabbing, police abuse of power and addresses citizenship rights of minorities. Based out of Washington, D.C., International Justice Mission has 17 Field Offices in Africa, Latin America, South Asia and Southeast Asia, and five Partner Offices. More than 94 percent of its 750-plus employees are local nationals.

Here's the markup:

International Justice Mission is an international, faith-based non-governmental 501(c)(3) organization focused on human rights, law and law enforcement. Founded by lawyer Gary Haugen in 1997, it is the world's largest international anti-slavery organization. It works to combat sex trafficking, child sexual assault, cybersex trafficking, forced labor slavery, property grabbing, police abuse of power and addresses citizenship rights of minorities. Based out of Washington, D.C., International Justice Mission has 17 Field Offices in Africa, Latin America, South Asia and Southeast Asia, and five Partner Offices. More than 94 percent of its 750-plus employees are local nationals.


 * ✅ Sorry, this took a a while.
 * I agree the condensed version of the lede is by and large an improvement and have therefore implemented it, with a few suggested changes. Specifically:
 * I'm not sure if sourcing the first two sentences to the USAToday piece should replace the two sources used in the previous version. Okay, the Zululand Observer one wasn't that hot, but I think the IJM factsheet is useful here as corroboration. I've added that back in. Maybe a more up-to-date factsheet link would be preferable?
 * For the next passage, sourcing statements to interviews only is often a little dicey, since they repeat verbatim the statements of primary involved individuals and thus don't really qualify as "independent sources". However, AFAIK, this is okay for uncontroversial informative data, which I guess the referenced statements fall under. So this ought to be fine.
 * I think that the statement "The bulk of IJM's work focuses on sex trafficking" is important and should stay (together with its source), unless this is demonstrably untrue, so I have retained it.
 * My main disagreement is about removing mention of existing criticisms from the lede. Quite apart from how these issues are dealt with in the main body of the article, the fact is that criticism exists and has received a fair amount of airing, so some mention in the lede is not WP:UNDUE. I have thus retained a version of the previous "the organization's participation in high-profile raids of brothels and close coordination with third world police agencies have engendered criticism from human rights and sex worker organizations over its mission and tactics", and the summary source. Doesn't strike me as an unfair formulation, and I'm afraid removing all mention from the lede would smack of some whitewashing.


 * All this results in an unusually heavily sourced lede, but the scale is wide open in that direction while there's a definite cut-off for under-sourcing of potentially controversial statements, so there should be no problem here.
 * Further comments welcome, particularly from those who have familiarity with the subject area (which I do not). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Lastly, I wonder which details from Criticism editors think should be merged into the rest of the article. There are several problems with the existing copy in Criticism: I value other editors' input to see how this can be handled but would also be happy to offer suggestions for others to respond to, if that would be helpful. 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) 22:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Criticism accounts for 731 of the article's 2,292 words&mdash;almost 32 percent of the total article
 * Numerous uses of weasel words and loaded language. Take the first paragraph of the section for example (boldface emphasis is mine): IJM has aroused intense criticism over its tactics and mission. Much of the criticism stems from  IJM's role in organizing brothel raids and subsequent arrests or deportations of sex workers.  Others have criticized IJM for hindering HIV prevention efforts and for maligning local organizations which have questioned its tactics.   Still others have questioned IJM's focus on law enforcement tactics and close coordination with police agencies to carry out a human rights mission.   IJM has been derisively referred to as "Cops for Christ" or "Human Rights Workers with Handcuffs."
 * Lacking citations in some areas. For example, the Thailand brothel raids subheader includes the following unsourced detail: In other brothel raids organized in 2000 and 2003, IJM urgently requested other local NGOs to provide translation assistance upon realizing the sex workers were not Thai citizens. The "rescued" sex workers were either deported to the border or detained for months in shelters.


 * and I was wondering if either of you saw this request to edit the introduction and discuss which details from Criticism should be merged into the rest of the article. Best, SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that there's weaseling going on in the first paragraph of the criticism section. This would be true if these vague phrases were to be used as the entirety of the statement; but they are meant as summaries of the subsections below, which contain details and references. As summary style, I think this is okay. Of course, if any of these are not backed up by later detail, they should go. I'd also suggest the "intense criticism" should be plain "criticism". - I agree that the last sentence of that paragraph is unnecessarily loaded; quoting witty insults is not neutral nor informative. I suggest removing that one in any case.


 * In general, I'm all for integrating dedicated "Criticism" (or similar) sections into the article, since that provides a much more holistic portrait. And honestly, if it can be done for PETA, who could fuel a daily soap with their controversies, then it can be done here. However, I'll have to declare myself insufficiently informed on the topic to actually do much about this - sorry.


 * , keep in mind that any potentially controversial statement that is lacking a source can be removed by any editor, as violating a basic tenet of Wikipedia. If it's an obvious case, then COI status doesn't come into it (at least to my understanding; if you want to play it extra safe, you may want to drop another question on the help desk about this). So do go ahead and remove what you consider doubtful and clearly unsourced statements (but better point to the talk page in the edit summary, and make a solid note here). Maybe that'll get some discussion going :) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Beyond what Elmidae just posted, I'll say that the reason the IJM criticism section is proportionately longer than that of other justice-related NGOs such as Amnesty International is likely that IJM simply generates more criticism. The way to change this is not to shorten the section, but rather, for IJM to change its tactics and aims, for example, to stop aiding in the violation of rights of adult sex workers and stop claiming to have "rescued" people who clearly did not want such as intervention and are now worse off for it.  That said, appropriate sourcing for the criticism section (as with all sections) is important, and more original document needs to be identified.


 * Thank you for updating the introduction, and for your thoughts on it and Criticism. There is one point I want to bring up: If we are going to keep "The bulk of IJM's work focuses on sex trafficking", I ask that we edit that phrase to say "The bulk of IJM's work focuses on slavery and sex trafficking". The source used is about IJM's work combatting sex trafficking, but it does not say that it constitutes the "bulk" of IJM's work, nor does it compare the amount of sex trafficking work to other focus areas. There are other sources used for this article that refer to IJM as an anti-slavery organization, so if the article is going to say that the "bulk" of IJM's work focuses on sex trafficking, it should say slavery, too. What do you think?


 * Yup, good point. Changed. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for updating the introduction, Elmidae. Do you know of anywhere I can go to get another opinion on how this article can move forward with the criticism? I appreciate any advice. Best, SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This is one of the perennial problems here - do something that rubs someone the wrong way, and the righteously angered will pop up within minutes; go through the recommended "request comment" channels, and you can cool you heels for months... two further approaches come to mind:
 * a) putting the article up at Peer review. I have had no experience with that venue at all, but since it bills itself as "a way to receive ideas on how to improve articles that are already decent", that might be useful. Moderate list of unfinished requests, but since it's organized by subject area, it might get suitable attention sooner than the stuff in the eternally backlogged "requested edits" list.
 * b) look at articles on related topics and see if there are recent substantial edits by individual people, then contact them on their talk page and specifically ask for their input. May be high variance but potentially get you really good feedback/cooperation. - Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, I appreciate your guidance about removing potentially controversial material that is unsourced. However, with my COI, I think it is best that I refrain.


 * In response to your note about the Criticism section, I am not trying to shorten the amount of criticism for the sake of decreasing the amount of criticism within the article. But by following Wikipedia rules on WP:VERIFY, WP:WEASEL, WP:NPOV, criticism within the article would likely carry WP:DUE WEIGHT.


 * Additionally, Criticism sections can quickly become biased and cast anything within them as negative just by falling under the umbrella of "criticism". It makes more sense, to me at least, to integrate these details throughout the article where appropriate.


 * Thank you both for your continued interest and discussion. Best, SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for Criticism
and It seems we can agree that the article would be better if the criticism was incorporated throughout. I prepared a draft in user space to show what they could look like. Do either of you care to give it a look? If you go into the edit history and look at the "diff", you can see exactly what I changed from the existing article. I am also posting a note on WP:PEER REVIEW.

This proposal incorporates items from the Criticism section into History, removing details that were duplicative or not found in the references cited. I have also made a few slight changes to wording to better reflect sourcing or remove bias.

Some of the changes you'll see:
 * Thailand brothel raids: I deleted the phrase "Although many forms of sex work are legal in Thailand," as it is not reflected in the source. Instead, the source says that IJM provided evidence of violations to "Thailand's penal code -- which outlaws brothels". I also rephrased the sentence "However, many of the women stated that they were working in the brothel voluntarily". The source does not use the word "many". This is what the Mother Jones story says: "Some of the women felt there was no longer a life for them outside prostitution -- that brothel life had ruined them. Others saw the brothel as their only hope to earn money".
 * IJM response to criticism: I rephrased the sentence "However, IJM has refused to share these protocols with reporters". The story says IJM did not respond to The Nation's request, not that it "refuses to share these protocols with reporters". Also, I added context to the sentence that says "IJM states that it supports 'placing child trafficking victims in secure environments from which they cannot leave'".

If either of you, or any other editors watching this page, can review my draft, that would be great. I hope Peer review will also generate interest in cleaning this up. Best, SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello SE. Regarding the protocols you mention that IJM introduces to law enforcement - Has IJM published these somewhere, or shared them with reporters?  If so, please post the link, as it would be useful to cite the source document.  Apart from that, I recently found additional sources and cleaned up the section on Thailand a bit. SONORAMA (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * and I see that SONORAMA has made some edits possibly in response to my notes above, making the details of the Thailand brothel raids section more specific and closer to the sourcing. That does help with some of the accuracy issues. However, I question whether so much detail is appropriate regarding just two events out of IJM's many activities. Two new sentences added are sourced to a primary source from another organization, not to a secondary source. (For what it is worth, SWAN focused its concerns on the actions of a third organization, Trafcord, during and following the raid.) Just noting these changes here, so that any other editors reviewing my request above and the draft are aware that these edits have been made and offering this up for further discussion. Best, SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * and SE, I appreciate your honesty in declaring your conflict of interest in your participation here.  Some of your suggested edits in other sections have been helpful.  However, when it comes to changing how criticism of your organization's activities is presented, your viewpoints are not as helpful.  The Thailand section is, as you point out, more accurate now.  That several dozen women were victimized by raids instigated by your organization is relevant.  If you wish to provide new sources that explain how IJM has changed its thinking on raid-and-rescue tactics, or what it is doing in Thailand now, that would be helpful.


 * And by the way, do you have an answer to the question I asked regarding sharing IJM protocols for law enforcement? You had mentioned them here previously. SONORAMA (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you again for the continued discussion. My request is not to erase criticisms of IJM from the article, but to make help make the article accurately reflect its sources with due weight. To address your question, we work closely with local law enforcement authorities. Laws, law enforcement, and law enforcement infrastructure varies significantly from country to country. Therefore, IJM has to nuance its approach to engage law enforcement based on the local context for long-term partnership and results. Hope this helps clarify the issue. Best, SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment on placement of criticism
Question: Should criticism of International Justice Mission stand in the Criticism section, or should it be incorporated throughout the article where appropriate? Relisted, due to low participation. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC) Initiated by SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Incorporated throughout the article. This is almost always the preferred approach to handling criticism. That being said it should never be used as a reason to tone down or exclude criticism. Content can be added to a "Criticism" section and then moved out and incorporated into the rest of the article on a piecemeal basis. (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Separate Criticism Section.  WP:CRITICISM is just an essay.  As a reader of Wikipedia, I often want to read the criticism section rather than a bunch of fluff at the top saying how wonderful a particular organization is.  If all the concerns are similar, but relate to different activities of the subject, it helps one understand what is really going on, rather than have the all spread out so that they are hard to find.  The rule of WP:NPOV addresses the concern of whether the amount of space for criticism is too high.  Burying the concerns makes little sense to me, unless the concerns are almost entirely related to a particular section, e.g.  if there is a section on Africa and all the criticism was about work in Africa, then the criticism might be a separate section under Africa.  But still I prefer to see all the criticisms at the end of an article, where it is easy to find, and even in the case I gave, there could be a subjection of criticism that dealt with just Africa.  --David Tornheim (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, mostlySeparate criticism section, mostly. It seems to me like this is a lot of criticism relative to the size and influence of the organization, so it merits a section of its own, and I agree with Dr. Fleischman and David Tornheim that this is generally preferable. However, I do like the current approach of including a little in the lead, a little in the section on brothel raids since that's particularly controversial, and perhaps other locations when appropriate. These could even refer to the Criticism section if you wanted, in my opinion. I also just want to say I appreciate the polite and thoughtful way SE at Int'l Justice Mission has raised their concerns about the page. Utsill (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you've misunderstood me. I support the position taken in the widely-cited WP:CRITICISM essay that criticism sections (sometimes called "criticism ghettos") are bad and that criticism should be incorporated throughout the article based on subject matter. It's not a matter for hiding the facts; rather, it's a matter of facilitating neutral treatment of the subject matter. When we put content in a section called "Criticism," then we're inherently focusing on negative material rather than on all material (negative, positive, and neither negative nor positive). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, your "Yes" was ambiguous (as was mine, now modified), and upon my second read, so was your explanation. I think I do disagree with you here then. I think separate criticism sections are preferable. I agree a separate section can lead to undue focus on the negatives, and we should be watchful for that. But the benefits, like ease of reading and seeing criticism if that's what the reader is looking for, seem to outweigh this downside. Utsill (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no benefit to helping readers find all of the criticisms. If that's a goal, then we might as well look at all of the content in the article, weigh whether it reflects well or poorly on the subject, and separate it into two sections on that basis. That's not encyclopedic, nor is it particularly educational. Our goal is to inform readers, not confirm their biases. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I often do this, and it's not to confirm my biases. For example, if I just saw a talk delivered by a representative of a nonprofit organisation, I might look for the WP criticism section in order to get a critical opinion because I know the representative was likely biased towards positive information. So I do think criticism sections are encyclopedic and education and informative. I don't think it makes sense to separate the whole article into positive/negative information, most obviously because most information is not clearly positive or negative. I think we shouldn't continue this broader discussion about Criticism sections here though, since that's more about policy the this page/decision specifically. Utsill (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Incorporated I am not a fan of having separated criticism sections. It draws too much attention to such sections. As it states in the Wikipedia:Criticism essay, unless it can be dealt with as a whole subject, it's not usually appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Incorporated In the end, any organization is a mix of good and bad decisions, and of good intentions that led to bad practices. Put it all together. While I'm sympathetic to the points raised by those who want a separate section, the overall article would read better and be fairer to all sides if criticism is simply incorporated throughout.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SONORAMA (talk • contribs) 13:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Incorporated As seems to be the general consensus on Wikipedia, I favor incorporation of criticism because it keeps the article organized by topic, rather than by favorable or unfavorable to the organization. In this case, the various brothel raids should certainly be listed in the "Activities" section, with description of the motivations, consequences, and views on them included there. Similarly, I would rather see a section on IJM's approach to arranging a livelihood for former sex workers, including a balance of perspectives, rather than the one-sided "Brothel to sweatshop pipeline" that exists now. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Incorporating Criticism
Hello, editors. Thank you all for your comments on how best to move forward with the Criticism section. Since the consensus is to incorporate criticism throughout the article, I've been revisiting where details can be included and think it best for these issues to be dealt with in the article's History section. Some issues, such as early IJM work in Thailand and Cambodia already appear in History, so that might take some tidying up. Is someone willing to make these edits?

Also, I reviewed the sources in the Brothel to sweatshop pipeline subsection that was recently added to the article. None of those mention International Justice Mission, so I ask that that issue be removed from this article, as it is probably more appropriate somewhere else on Wikipedia.

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) 17:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Since it was determined that the rough consensus of the RfC was to incorporate the Criticism section, what do you think are the next steps? Best, SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge the content into the main corpus where appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that, since the criticism discusses the group's activities, the only section logical is the"Activities" heading. That said, this would bloat the section of a simple cut-and-paste merge was performed.  The "activities' section could easily have location-specific or program-specific subsections, with a NPOV concerns addressed within each. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Some should go under "activities", some under "history", and the introductory paragraph should be rewritten to include the criticism as well. References to "rescues" should appear in quotes, as it is clear that many did not want an intervention and were/are victimized by these actions. SONORAMA (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * To make it easy for editors to incorporate the criticism, I have prepared a draft for you to consider implementing. This is mostly copied from the existing Criticism section (see this link showing the edits made) with a few things worth noting:
 * My draft deletes the paragraph of text that introduces the current Criticism section because it contains WP:WEASEL and, most important considering we're trying to incorporate the criticism through the article, does not offer any new information.
 * I changed the subsection titled Maligning indigenous public health efforts to a more WP:NPOV Impact on indigenous public health efforts.
 * Lastly, I included the subsection Brothel to sweatshop pipeline, although I object to it being included in this article; none of the references used and cited in this subsection mention International Justice Mission.


 * Thanks again to everyone who joined this conversation. Best, SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * SE, I don't think it is useful to simply cut the criticism from its own section, make a few tweaks and bury it under text in another section. If we are going to incorporate it throughout the article, it must be incorporated appropriately throughout each section, including the intro paragraph. This obviously requires a bit more thought and discussion than a simple cut-and-paste, which perhaps is why no one has jumped in to make changes. I suggest we consider alternate revisions before proceeding.SONORAMA (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I will not look at this request, however, I will provide an input on what should be done. First, I completely agree with the editors' suggestion to incorporate the material across the article. How it would be done, and where each statement should go, I have no idea. Ultimately, this is up to the regular editors who look at this request to decide. Second, the WikiProjects WP:HR and WP:ORGZ are also available for assistance in the matter, regardless of how active they are. Though in case they aren't active, I will ask for the assistance of, who I know regularly works on these kinds of requests. Thanks for your request. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your advice! WP:HR and WP:ORGZ were among the first places I went when I started work on this article. Perhaps now is a good time to revisit them! SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed changes to introduction
Hello fellow Wikipedians. There has been a lot of expert discussion incorporating criticism, and it seems that the consensus is to do so, although no one is currently working on it. Would anyone object to the following changes to the first two paragraphs? This change would make the first paragraph about the organization itself, and the second about its mission, with a criticism. It does use some of the wording from the draft proposed by SE at Int'l Justice Mission but the order has been changed as noted above. If this edit is approved, I am willing to work through the rest of the request from SE at Int'l Justice Mission. I am not affiliated with IJM in any way.

International Justice Mission is an international, Christian non-governmental 501(c)(3) organization focused on human rights, law and law enforcement. Founded in 1997 by lawyer Gary Haugen of the United States, it is the world's largest international anti-slavery organization. Based in Washington, D.C., International Justice Mission has 17 field offices in Africa, Latin America, South Asia and Southeast Asia, and five partner offices in North America, Europe and Australia. More than 94 percent of its 750-plus employees are local nationals.

IJM works to combat sex trafficking, child sexual assault, cybersex trafficking, forced labor slavery, property grabbing, and police abuse of power, and addresses citizenship rights of minorities. The bulk of IJM's work focuses on slavery and sex trafficking. The organization's high-profile raids of brothels and close coordination with some third-world police agencies have generated criticism from human rights and sex worker organizations over its mission and tactics.

Jaking01 (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * As no one has objected to this change after 9 days, I have completed it. Jaking01 (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jaking01, for updating the introduction. Best, SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Brothel to sweatshop pipeline
Hi, I recently asked editors at Requests for comment on how to best proceed with material from the Criticism section following the RfC process (The discussions above go into much more detail). On the RfC Talk page, WhatamIdoing suggested I try small, simple changes using.

With that in mind, I will start that process with this edit request, asking editors to remove the Brothel to sweatshop pipeline subsection. None of the three references cited in that subsection about what "some journalists" say is "a link between organized 'rescues' of sex workers and the garment industry" mention International Justice Mission. Following that up with a primary source (a press release) that shows that a former IJM board member now works with Traidcraft verges on Original research. While perhaps this issue should be handled elsewhere on Wikipedia, I would argue it does not belong here without proper references that verify claims that this is an issue with International Justice Mission.

Seeing that you are willing to work through some of this, is there any interest in starting here?

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) 22:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am interested in helping, but I think we should wait a few days to allow other editors to weigh in on this request. I have not had any responses to my suggestion above, so if you have no objections, I may do that one first. Then if there is no consensus against the removal of the Brothel to sweatshop pipeline subsection, I will make that change. Jaking01 (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The "brothel to sweatshop" pipeline is indeed referenced in multiple sources, some of which mention IJM. For example:


 * Mentions IJM: https://www.opendemocracy.net/beyondslavery/anne-elizabeth-moore/from-brothel-to-sweatshop-questions-on-labour-trafficking-in-camb
 * http://lh.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/lh/article/viewFile/38328/34722
 * http://www.triplepundit.com/2014/10/cambodian-reintegration-program-sends-sex-workers-sweatshops/
 * The book, "Threadbare: Clothes Sex and Trafficking", by Anne Elizabeth Moore, mentions IJM and the brothel to sweatshop issue specifically.SONORAMA (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the sources. I looked through all but the book. In order to connect IJM to the sweatshop pipeline, the first source contains only the statement about a former board member of IJM accepting the CoB position at a Christian-based fair trade "apparel company" and development charity." But the Traidcraft website describes them as providing "the UK’s widest range of fair trade foods, beverages, household cleaning, charcoal and rubber products, as well as fair trade crafts and clothing, from fair trade suppliers in more than 30 developing countries," so not just an apparel company. The second source criticizes IJM's work but does not link them to the sweatshop pipeline, unless I missed it when scanning through the article. The third source does not mention IJM at all. Unfortunately I do not have access to the book to verify its content - can you provide a quote or link to the relevant section? Given the weakness of the connection between IJMs work and clothing sweatshops in the first three sources, perhaps it would be most encyclopedic to take the first two statements from this section and place them elsewhere in the article, as the third statement in the section seems to be just guilt-by-association.


 * Thanks for diving in! I'm glad someone is looking at this. If there is any way I can help, please let me know. Best,SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I looked at the 7 sources given for this section in more detail (four in the original article and three new ones given on the talk page (the book by Anne Elizabeth Moore appears twice). Three of the sources are from the same writer, Anne Elizabeth Moore, which gives them less weight than if they were actually different sources. Two more are also from a single shared source, a VICE video and a news article describing the same video. One souce criticizes IJM directly but does not mention the "pipeline," and the ones that mention the pipeline either don't mention IJM at all, or the link is only that a former board member now works at a fair trade organization that also deals in clothes. Based on my review, I consider the link between IJM and the "pipeline" to be unsupported by the sources provided and I am going to remove it. I do feel that there is sufficient remaining criticism remaining in this section to cover the other concerns raised in these sources beyond than the "pipeline" itself. On the other hand, the York University "Left History" article is a valuable reference for this subject and I will add it as an additional citation for the criticism in the introduction. Jaking01 (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jaking01, for your thorough review and update. Best, SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thailand brothel raids
Hi, as was recommended to me on my Request for comment, I am making small, simple requests to suggest how we can move content from Criticism throughout the article, as was the consensus in discussions above.

With this request, I am simply asking that the text from the Thailand brothel raids subsection be moved to History. I think it could fit after the first sentence of the third paragraph in History, prior to the detail of IJM's work in Cambodia. I included a draft of what that might look like below, and highlighted the changes in green.


 * Reviewed the sources and material prior to making the requested edit; found it to be a reasonable and balanced summary of the references provided. Jaking01 (talk) 05:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The International Justice Mission was founded in 1997 as a faith-based non-profit by American lawyer Gary Haugen of the United States. In its first case, the organization's aided the arrest of a rape suspect in Manila, Philippines. In 1998, IJM claimed to have helped rescue more than 700 people. In addition to helping clients with legal representation, Haugen decided his organization could have more influence by collaborating with governments of developing countries to help improve their legal systems.

IJM cites the Bible verse Isaiah 1:17 as one of their core commitments:  Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow. - New International Version (NIV)

Since its founding, IJM has sought to assist law enforcement conduct "rescue" operations for girls and women trapped in sex trafficking and sexual violence in Asia, Latin America and Africa. In the year 2000, and again in 2003, IJM instigated a raid on a karaoke restaurant in Chiang Mai, Northern Thailand. Thai police later twice raided the establishment, arresting and subsequently deporting the women who worked there. IJM characterized the operations as successful "rescues". In another raid in 2001, IJM sent men undercover to a brothel, used hidden cameras and produced a 25-page document alleging specific violations of Thai law. Police raided the brothel and detained 43 female sex workers. Some of the women detained by police said that they were working voluntarily and had not wished to leave the brothel. About half the group subsequently escaped; some apparently feared deportation to Burma. After the 2000 and 2003 raids on the Chiang Mai restaurant, IJM requested other local non-governmental organizations to provide translation assistance when its employees realized that the sex workers were not Thai citizens. After providing translation assistance, the Shan Women's Action Network said that the raids had grossly violated the women’s human rights. The group pointed out that although IJM had twice conducted a raid on the same establishment, it failed to protect the women from prosecution and further victimization. In later years IJM moderated its initial assertion that the Thailand brothel raids were successful. In a 2012 article, Holly Burkhalter, IJM’s vice president for Government Relations, characterized the 2003 raid as “one of the few IJM cases in which law enforcement treatment of non-coerced adults did not meet IJM standards.”

Its rescue operations in Cambodia in the early 2000s are among the agency's best known such activities. IJM investigators went into brothels in the village of Svay Pak in May 2002 with hidden cameras and selected four underage girls to take to a hotel. There IJM's lawyers told the girls they would be taken somewhere safe. The organization turned over its evidence to Cambodian authorities, who rescued 14 more girls a week later. About a week after that, Cambodian police arrested those girls for immigration violations.

The next year, IJM went undercover with Dateline NBC. The group's investigation helped lead police to arrest pimps and rescue 37 girls from local brothels in Cambodia. While IJM considered these early rescue missions to be successes, critics questioned the organization's tactics, saying raids on brothels do not focus on the root causes of child prostitution, have led to the arrests of people not in the sex trade, and hindered HIV-prevention initiatives.

International Justice Mission expanded its work beyond prevention of sex trafficking. By 2009 its lawyers, social workers and advocates also helped victims whose land had been seized, who were bonded laborers, or who were falsely imprisoned. In 2010 U.S. News & World Report named International Justice Mission as one of '10 Service Groups That Are Making a Difference' list. Under President Barack Obama's administration, the United States Department of State honored Haugen, International Justice Mission's founder and CEO, as a Trafficking in Persons Report Hero Acting to End Modern Slavery in 2012. The State Department said IJM helped nearly 4,000 victims and assisted in the prosecution of 220 offenders between 2006 and 2012.

In December 2011, Google awarded a total of US$11.5 million in grants to organizations to combat modern-day slavery. Google donated US$9.8 million to International Justice Mission to lead a coalition focusing on fighting slavery in India, in addition to running advocacy and education programs in the country, and mobilizing Americans.

IJM CEO Gary Haugen and Victor Boutros co-wrote The Locust Effect: Why the End of Poverty Requires the End of Violence in 2014. They won the 2016 University of Louisville Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order for this book. Haugen gave a 19-minute TED talk on this material in Vancouver, Canada, in 2015.

Within 20 years of its founding, International Justice Mission had grown into an organization with a US$51.6 million budget comprising more than 750 employees in 17 field offices in Africa, Latin America, South Asia and Southeast Asia, and five partner offices in Canada, UK, Netherlands, Germany and Australia.

In July 2016, Willie Kimani, a Kenyan IJM lawyer, and two persons, including an IJM client, were found murdered and dumped in a river outside Nairobi in Kenya. They were last seen alive at a police station. Four members of the Kenyan Administrative Police were charged with murder on July 18, 2016; they pleaded not guilty. Haugen denounced the killings as "an intolerable outrage and should serve as an abrupt wake-up call to the blatant injustices committed daily and incessantly against the poor and vulnerable around the world".

I understand if reviewing editors feel the text needs to be adjusted in order to make it fit better in History. But I hope this edit request can serve as a good starting point to properly incorporate the material throughout the article. Since you both have been active on this page, I wanted to let you know about this edit request.

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) 22:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jaking01, for completing this request. I will post another for Cambodia below. SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Cambodia
Hi, here is another request to incorporate material from Criticism to History, as has been discussed in discussions above. With this request, I am asking that text from Cambodia televised brothel raid replace the first two sentences of the existing Work in Cambodia subsection of History. I included a draft of what that might look like below, and highlighted the changes in green.

IJM director Gary Haugen invited the American television show Dateline (NBC) to film a March 29, 2003 raid which it planned to conduct at a large Cambodian brothel in the village of Svay Pak. IJM operatives were equipped for the raid with pepper spray and batons. The brothel contained approximately 40 girls and women, who were detained by Thai police. A noodle vendor, who had no involvement with the brothel, was among those who were arrested in the raid; the noodle vendor subsequently died in jail of a stroke. IJM had contracted with a Cambodian human rights organization, LICADHO, to review its actions in organizing the raid. Peter Sainsbury, the consultant who reviewed the raid, said that he had told IJM about his medical concerns about the noodle vendor, but that his concerns were ignored. At least twelve of the victims "rescued" from the 2003 Svay Pak raid ran away from the safe house to which they were taken. In a brothel raid a year later there, a number of girls rescued from the 2003 raid were found to be involved again in sex work.

While IJM considered these early rescue missions to be successes, critics questioned the organization's tactics, saying raids on brothels do not focus on the root causes of child prostitution, have led to the arrests of people not in the sex trade, and hindered HIV-prevention initiatives.

Pinging you to let you know about this request.

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) 19:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for moving the Cambodia material. I'll be prepping another request shortly. Best, SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Public health and IJM response to criticisms
Hi, here is my final request to incorporate material from Criticism to History, as has been discussed in discussions above. With this request, I am asking that the text from Maligning Local Organizations be moved from Criticism to History, just below Work in Cambodia. I do not think the subheader is necessary, but if reviewing editors deem it necessary, I would ask that editors rename it to something less WP:POV. For example: Effects on public health efforts. Following that would be a good place to move IJM response to criticism. Again, I don't think the subhead is necessary here.

Follow those changes, I recommend the remaining Criticism section introduction be fully deleted, as the material already exists in the article. Also, as written, the material is unsourced, WP:POV and contains WP:WEASEL. Pinging you to let you know this should be my final request. Thanks again for your assistance thus far. Best, SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Justice Mission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160408112243/http://institute.ijm.org/ to http://institute.ijm.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Anti Slavery Organization?
IJM is referred to as "the world's largest international anti slavery organization" in the intro paragraph. There are two citations for this, but both refer to articles about other topics and mention IJM in passing. I don't think this text is correct. Firstly, it's not clear what "anti slavery" means here. There are also other, larger organizations -- Amnesty International comes to mind -- which have a focus on human rights and do human rights work, including investigations, lobbying governments, and expose injustices. I propose to remove this citation, unless there is some sort of generally accepted criteria for "anti slavery organizations" which IJM fulfills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SONORAMA (talk • contribs) 21:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * @SONORAMA -- hi, I noticed that you made a change to the introduction without first raising it on the talk page to provide an opportunity for comment. The first and third sentences in the second paragraph of the Introduction are now repetitive where they weren't before your change. I don't want to simply revert your edit and so request that you please review your edit to see if you can improve upon it. I do have a user account and so feel free to ping me or other interested editors for ideas. My recommendation is to move the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph to be the 2nd sentence of the 1st paragraph, and then move the current 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph (the criticism) to follow the Bible verse in the 2nd paragraph, which I think looks a little weird in its current position at the end of the introduction. I believe that would make the entire introduction read better. Jaking01 (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * @Jaking01 -- Sure, I agree it can be better worded. I think the bible verse should be moved out of the intro and to the next section (history).  I'll put something up here on the talk page and we can figure it out. SONORAMA (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * @Jaking01 -- Here's my proposed edits for the intro section and the first para of the section that follows. I'd appreciate any comments/revisions.

International Justice Mission is an international, Christian non-governmental 501(c)(3) organization focused on human rights, laws and law enforcement founded in 1997 by American lawyer Gary Haugen. Based in Washington, D.C., International Justice Mission has 17 field offices in Africa, Latin America, South Asia and Southeast Asia, and five partner offices in North America, Europe and Australia. More than 94 percent of its 750-plus employees are local nationals.[6]

The bulk of IJM's work focuses on sex trafficking.[7] The organization's high-profile brothel raids have resulted in the arrest and displacement of voluntary, adult sex workers and generated criticism from human rights and sex worker organizations over its mission and tactics.[8][9] IJM works to combat sex trafficking, child sexual assault, cybersex trafficking, forced labor slavery, property grabbing, and police abuse of power, and addresses citizenship rights of minorities.

History

Founding

The International Justice Mission was founded in 1997 as a faith-based non-profit by American lawyer Gary Haugen. JM cites the Bible verse Isaiah 1:17 as one of their core commitments:[10][11]

Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; Plead the case of the widow. - New International Version (NIV)

In its first case, IJM aided the arrest of a rape suspect in Manila, Philippines.[13] In 1998, IJM claimed to have helped rescue more than 700 people.[14] In addition to helping clients with legal representation, Haugen decided his organization could have more influence by collaborating with governments of developing countries to help improve their legal systems.[13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SONORAMA (talk • contribs) 00:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Justice Mission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161023205759/https://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/09/25/president-obama-speaks-clinton-global-initiative-annual-meeting to https://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/09/25/president-obama-speaks-clinton-global-initiative-annual-meeting

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Revisiting introduction changes
Hi, it has been a while since I have made a request here but I recently read through the page again and noticed some things that I wanted to bring to editors' attention. For those who may not have seen my previous requests here, I'm Sterling from International Justice Mission.

In a discussion above, the suggestion of removing "the world's largest international anti-slavery organization" was raised, and I see that this wording is now no longer in the introduction of the article. I am requesting that editors re-add this wording on the basis of its use to describe IJM in a number of sources, including:
 * The Chicago Tribune: Adam LaRoche, international groups go undercover to stop human trafficking "The largest anti-slavery organization is Washington, D.C.-based International Justice Mission, which has a $44 million annual budget.
 * Deseret News: These women are undercover freedom fighters "the Christian-based International Justice Mission, the world’s largest anti-slavery organization"
 * The Telegraph: Local prayer gathering to focus on human trafficking ""IJM is the largest anti-slavery, anti-human trafficking organization in the world," she said."
 * The Baltimore Sun: Benjamin Watson is Ravens' nominee for Walter Payton NFL Man of the Year Award "In partnership with IJM, the world’s largest international anti-slavery organization working to combat human trafficking, modern-day slavery and other forms of violence against the poor, the Watsons joined the global fight to end the scourge of sex trafficking."
 * USA Today: Actor: Working on 'Veep' makes me respect real-life lawmakers "Hale was in Washington to tour Capitol Hill with the International Justice Mission, the world’s largest international anti-slavery organization."

As well, some recent edits have altered the order of sentences in the second paragraph of the introduction, and it now reads a little repetitive. Originally the sentence listing all the areas of work came first, followed by the sentence noting that the bulk of work was on slavery and sex trafficking, followed by the summary of criticism. In this order, the sentence beginning "The bulk of…" was a good follow-on and further clarification on the full list. Now that the list of areas of work is at the end, and it seems out of place. I propose either changing back to the original order or simply trimming the sentence "The bulk of IJM's work focuses on sex trafficking".

In short, I propose a couple of small updates to the introduction to reintroduce a well-supported detail and fix the confusing order of the second paragraph.

International Justice Mission is an international, Christian, non-governmental 501(c)(3) organization focused on human rights, law and law enforcement. Founded in 1997 by lawyer Gary Haugen of the United States, it is based in Washington, D.C. and is the largest international anti-slavery organization. International Justice Mission has 17 field offices in Africa, Latin America, South Asia and Southeast Asia, and five partner offices in North America, Europe and Australia. All IJM employees are required to be practicing Christians ; 94% are nationals of the countries they work in.

IJM works to combat sex trafficking, child sexual assault, cybersex trafficking, forced labor slavery, property grabbing, and police abuse of power, and addresses citizenship rights of minorities. The bulk of IJM's work focuses on sex trafficking. The organization's high-profile raids of brothels and close coordination with some third-world police agencies have generated criticism from human rights and sex worker organizations over its mission and tactics.

Here's the markup:

International Justice Mission is an international, Christian, non-governmental 501(c)(3) organization focused on human rights, law and law enforcement. Founded in 1997 by lawyer Gary Haugen of the United States, it is based in Washington, D.C. and is the largest international anti-slavery organization. International Justice Mission has 17 field offices in Africa, Latin America, South Asia and Southeast Asia, and five partner offices in North America, Europe and Australia. All IJM employees are required to be practicing Christians ; 94% are nationals of the countries they work in.

IJM works to combat sex trafficking, child sexual assault, cybersex trafficking, forced labor slavery, property grabbing, and police abuse of power, and addresses citizenship rights of minorities. The bulk of IJM's work focuses on sex trafficking. The organization's high-profile raids of brothels and close coordination with some third-world police agencies have generated criticism from human rights and sex worker organizations over its mission and tactics.

I have a conflict of interest so I am bringing this suggestion to the Talk page for others to consider. Best, (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Reply 26-APR-2018
A potential problem with using these publication's term the largest international anti-slavery organization (hereafter referred to by its acronym TLIASO) is the un-agreed upon nature of the term and what it entails. Without a universal definition of what constitutes TLIASO, the specific uses of that term are open to interpretation. Additionally, in each reference's use of it, the term may have been chosen based on stylistic concerns by the publications involved, in order to satisfy their own internal publication criteria for the dissemination of information. Allow me to elaborate: The problem arises when Wikipedia decides to replicate the term TLIASO, a term which may have been established according to the referenced publications own internal criteria, and not Wikipedia's. These criteria are not necessarily the same. For Wikipedia to align the language used in its article with that of a handful of publications on a term whose meaning has not been otherwise established with certainty seems arbitrary in nature. I was wondering what your thoughts on this are? Thanks 0.70em 21:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Any text representing an event or events can be considered a narrative.  News reports like those in your sources are individual narratives about trafficking.
 * 2) Readers of those narratives do not receive these stories passively, but rather, they construct the narrative's sense in their own minds, what's known as realization of the story. A common way to conceptualize the realization of a story is to think of this sense making as the construction of mental models of the narrative. These mental models are cognitive structures that represent aspects of the external world.
 * 3)  As far as I know, there is currently no agreed-upon definition of what constitutes TLIASO. Thus, the descriptions given by those references of IJM as TLIASO are those publication's way of helping their readers to construct mental models of IJM's efforts against sex trafficking as the publications see them, and not according to any universally-agreed upon standard for TLIASO. Does TLIASO refer to the influential reach of IJM, or does it refer to IJM's number of employees? Does it refer to the amount of money spent by IJM in these efforts, or does it refer to the number of "recovered" people who were previously sex-trafficked and were rescued? Simply saying TLIASO fails to tell us how and in what way it is TLIASO.


 * I agree. Amnesty International is larger than IJM in terms of budget.  It's an international organization that also works on some of the same issues IJM does.  It's specifically "anti-slavery".  So why don't we call Amnesty "The Largest International Anti-Slavery Organization"?  I suspect what happened is that IJM gave itself that appellation, and it's since been picked up by other media.SONORAMA (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If we were to apply the principles set forth in WP:ORGCRIT, we would see that each of the references provided in this edit request would suffer from at least one detriment. Now granted, those guidelines are meant to be applied during an article's creation, and as such, are generally higher requirements for sources used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references for within an article — but I believe those principles are at least illustrative here in what we would ideally like to see as far as referencing goes. Indeed, some editors have argued that the controversial nature of these claims warrant the use of the stricter criteria. I would defer to consensus. What does the community think? 0.70em 17:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Reply 02-MAY-2018
✅ The following changes were either made or not made to the article:
 * 1) Of the lede's two paragraphs, the first one was left untouched, as nothing was requested to be removed from it. The second paragraph was replaced with the proposed version's second paragraph.
 * 2) Regarding the claim "the worlds largest", I feel that this meets the definition of a substantial claim and as such, requires substantial sources in order to be appended to the article. Regards, 0.70em 04:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reviewing and the change to the second paragraph. To answer your question above about "largest international anti-slavery organization" the reason for my request is that this phrasing is used to describe International Justice Mission across a variety of sourcing, so my understanding was that since it is supported by multiple sources it would be appropriate to include. Your question about how "largest" is defined is a good one. IJM is the largest (in terms of budget and staff) international nonprofit organization that provides rescue to people in slavery. Some other advocacy-oriented organizations have larger budgets and staff than IJM, but they do not provide rescue. However, I've not seen this expressed in any news articles. I will continue to see if any reliable sources describe this in detail, focusing as you suggest on substantial sources. Best, SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Work in Ghana
Hi, I have written up a new draft of the Work in Ghana section to bring more balance and clarification to the issue. The sourcing used in this section currently only tells one perspective of the story, while there are other sources available that offer additional details not reflected in the article. Stories in the Daily Graphic and Ghanaian Times note that International Justice Mission supported efforts by Ghanaian authorities to rescue children the authorities deemed enslaved in Ghana. It is important that the distinction be made that Ghanaian police lead the rescue of these children, and that International Justice Mission supported this effort. My draft adds a few sentences to the top of the existing material to clarify that it was government authorities who led the rescue, that IJM supported these agencies, and that the rescued children were taken into the custody of the Social Welfare Department for shelter and rehabilitation. This is crucial detail that is missing from the article.

In 2017, Ghanaian police rescued 31 children deemed "enslaved" in the fishing industry of Lake Volta. The rescue team included Ghana's Social Welfare Department, the Anti-Human Trafficking Unit of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), the Marine Police Unit, the country's Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection, and International Justice Mission. The boys were taken into the custody of the Social Welfare Department for shelter and rehabilitation at an undisclosed location in Accra. The raid was denounced by a member of the Ghanaian parliament who represents the Afram Plains region. She stated that some of the boys were merely helping their parents who fish for a living, and that the "rescue" resulted in IJM "abducting" the boys to non-disclosed locations, where they could not attend school or see their parents. Other Ghanaian officials said it is typical for families to fish together in the area and the IJM failed to research or understand the local culture, leaving the area worse after its intervention.

Here's the markup:

In 2017, Ghanaian police rescued 31 children deemed "enslaved" in the fishing industry of Lake Volta. The rescue team included Ghana's Social Welfare Department, the Anti-Human Trafficking Unit of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), the Marine Police Unit, the country's Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection, and International Justice Mission. The boys were taken into the custody of the Social Welfare Department for shelter and rehabilitation at an undisclosed location in Accra. The raid was denounced by a member of the Ghanaian parliament who represents the Afram Plains region. She stated that some of the boys were merely helping their parents who fish for a living, and that the "rescue" resulted in IJM "abducting" the boys to non-disclosed locations, where they could not attend school or see their parents. Other Ghanaian officials said it is typical for families to fish together in the area and the IJM failed to research or understand the local culture, leaving the area worse after its intervention.

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) 23:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Reply 01-JUNE-2018
Question for the COI editor: The press release about this operation which was put out by IJM at their global website shown here tells an interesting story about these Ghanaian children. But curiously, it tells this story in quite a different tone than the one you're proposing. For example, the IJM story describes these children and "their short lives of harsh treatment on the fishing boats" in no uncertain terms, describing in great detail the "old and torn clothes" they wore, while explaining the heartbreaking details of how these children "slept, ate warm meals, played, and shared their stories.. as they began to understand that they were free from the life of abuse they had known."

Now contrast that, with the story as it is told in your edit request proposal, which states quite the opposite — describing these children as "merely helping their parents who fish for a living, and that the "rescue" resulted in IJM "abducting" the boys to non-disclosed locations, where they could not attend school or see their parents." Am I correct in assuming that all of the text you've placed under "extended content" is your edit request proposal that you'd like placed into the article? If that is not the case, then I apologize. It is the normal practice of COI editors to place the desired text within the talk page for editors to review, and to clarify which parts of the text are being added by them, by placing their text. That way, editors can clearly see versus the text which was already in the article. As your request currently stands, you've made no distinction between the two (if there is a distinction). Please clarify: Is this text a combination of your proposal plus the already existing text.... or does this text represent your entire edit request? Please clarify.  .  spinten do    02:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The reason why I'm asking, is that because you've made no distinction between the text in your edit request, it appears as if you are attempting to place information which is critical of IJM into the article, which struck me as odd considering you claim to work for them. Suffice it to say, I haven't looked at the article to see what text is already there. In any event, doing so would still tell me nothing about whether or not the text is originating from you or someone else. For that I would have to go into the edit history and search for who placed what, where, and when. All of that searching would constitute a time sink which can be avoided if edit proposals are color coded. FYI. Thank you!  .  spinten do    02:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

✅ This is the compromise version I implemented:"In 2017, Ghanaian authorities placed 31 children originating from fishing communities into custody after removing them from locations within the area of Lake Volta. The authorities who placed the children into custody included representatives from Ghanaian social welfare agencies within the government. The actions which placed the children into custody were denounced by a member of the Ghanaian parliament who represents the Afram Plains region, who stated that 'some of the boys were merely helping their parents who fish for a living.' Other Ghanaian officials said it was typical for families to fish together in the area, and singled out IJM in particular for what they saw were instances where 'IJM may have failed to research or understand the local culture.'"On another note, I would like to remind you that that when submitting a proposal for an edit request, when a proposal includes text which is older text along with text which is newer and these texts are combined into one edit request proposal, would you be so kind as to specify which text is newly added text, and which text is  not newly added text. This would be most helpful. Please have a wonderful day.  .  spinten do    08:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for collaborating on this toward making it a better, more balanced section than it previously was. However, as currently written, the section does not say why the children were rescued. I will post a fresh edit request below.


 * In future similar requests, I will make sure I color code them as you suggested so it is easier for reviewing editors such as yourself.


 * Thank you for your time with this. Best, SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Revisiting Work in Ghana
Hi, Spintendo was kind enough to assist with my request above to bring more balance and clarification surrounding IJM's work in Ghana. However, as written now, the article does not say why the children were "taken into custody" from locations within the area of Lake Volta. It seems crucial to include that this action was taken because authorities deemed these children enslaved, otherwise it begs the question as to what prompted the action and why it is relevant to IJM's Wikipedia article.

The source from the Daily Graphic says police rescued "children engaged in forced labour". The article also says, "the operation was in line with the police’s collaborative effort with partners to end child trafficking and forced labour on the Volta Lake and other parts of the country". I propose adding some language to the first sentence of Work in Ghana for clarification. Based on Spintendo's feedback above, I color coded my proposed text in.

In 2017, Ghanaian authorities.

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) 20:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅ Seems sensible and corresponds to source. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Elmidae. Work in Ghana reads better now. Best, SE at Int&#39;l Justice Mission (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)