Talk:Jamie Leigh Jones

Deletion

This article has been recommended for being deleted. ABC News has a story on it, and an official filing by Jamie Leigh Jones has taken place. This page doesn't side with Jamie Leigh Jones or Halliburton. It simply states the allegation and the foundation she started. Bleu`dove (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand, then, why it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.78.244.73 (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Jamie Leigh Jones, it should stay as is. Also, an article is *supposed* to be non-partial, this article is doing its job.

The article clearly is NOT a biography, but a discussion of a series of events in the subject's life.Barryboyn (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This article must be deleted if you are not going to represent the facts correctly. I have given you all the facts to represent Jamie Leigh Jones accurately. Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Subject to the law

Currently the article states: "Neither the U.S. or Iraqi legal systems can be applied to contractors in Iraq, and thus her assailants have likely broken no laws."

The "Neither system can be applied" part sounds odd and not fully accurate to me. The legal system, of Iraq in particular since this occurred in Iraq, can be applied. It's just that under that legal system apparently the contractors (such as KBR) can't be held accountable for their actions. If there is a law that says "You won't be held accountable" it isn't that the legal system doesn't apply. It's that the legal system DOES apply an it says "no punishment for you".

Just not sure how to properly phrase this in a single sentence and maintain the non-partial tone. "How the legal systems of the U.S and Iraq apply to the actions of contractors in unclear, and thus it is possible her assailant may not face any legal penalty."  ???

Thoughts? - Sean Martin (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's essentially accurate as stated, it sounds odd because it is an odd situation. Trying to clarify that the reason the Iraq legal system doesn't apply is that there is an Iraq law saying that their legal system doesn't apply may just make it more confusing, but I'd be open to suggestions. How the legal systems apply isn't unclear though, it's clear that neither apply.199.159.126.137 (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's a confusing/unusual situation, but think it should be accurately described. And if there is a law that says the legal system doesn't apply then, in a rather convoluted way, the system clearly does apply. There is a law that is being used, even if it is being used to say the law doesn't apply. - Sean Martin (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It might help if we actually put a link to CPA Order 17 in there somewhere.Kmusser (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Takes you right to a link that helps clarify the application of the law. Done! - Sean Martin (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

It is extremely important for us to remember that "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. A couple editors have repeatedly removed the words "alleged" and generally treated Jones' civil complaint as if it were a legal finding. Treating her allegations as facts is potentially libelous. Further removals of "alleged", or additions of text which states definitively that a rape occurred, will be reverted and you could potentially be blocked from editing. This is a rule which we need to take seriously. Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more information. Rhobite (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Alleged, get real, she had a rape kit done, she had photos taken by the U.S. Army which has vouched for this and they were then conveniently lost by her employer who would stand to lose a lot of money. She has stated in Congress that she is undergoing reconstructive surgery because of this. Yeah Wikipedia doesn't want to get sued, well look the other way, unless you get a cease and desist letter there isn't a problem. Don't be a shill for Halliburton by using weasel words like alleged when it is clear it is true and don't threaten fellow Wikipedians with being banned from editing. Who made you King of Wikipedia... other than yourself? Bob 72.209.12.250

Until someone has been found guilty or not guilty, the actions are alleged. Kingturtle (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the article should state she was raped, "allegedly by her Halliburton or KBR co-workers". It would seem, according to the physician, that she was not allegedly raped, only the allegation regarding the identity of the perps is in question? Witchy green eyes (talk) 00:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I also believe that the suggestion that no law applies is false and misleading. Perhaps the writer meant no "criminal law" clearly Halliburton belives that United States Contract law and the Federal Arbitation Act applies while Jamie Leigh Jones believes that common law of torts applies to this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.152.13 (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge Charles Boartz into this article

Charles Boartz is not a notable person outside of his involvement in the Jamie Leigh Jones incident. Therefore his article should be merged into this one, or both articles should be combined into something like Jamie Leigh Jones rape accusations. We should take care not to include irrelevant biographical details about Charles Boartz such as his home address, which someone added to the article at some point. Rhobite (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not merge yet. If he is found guilty, he is a criminal. There are many articles about people whose sole claim of notability is their crime. Kingturtle (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Why give Jones' home town but not Boartz's? I think both should be in or both out. For now, I'm going to delete hers. If you all can agree to put both in, that would also be fine. Eperotao (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have done the merge. I have to agree that the article should be under a different name (as has been done in many similar cases). There is simply nothing to say about Charles Boartz beyond his involvement in this case and there will most likely never be any coverage about him specifically. In any case, the article for Boartz was just a word-for-word copy of bits and pieces of this one. Merging also makes it easier to control the BLP issues. Pichpich (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, with respect to Kingturtle's comment: I know this will sound real real cold but while we do have articles about people whose sole claim to fame is their crime, most have committed much more serious crimes. Now, don't go thinking that I don't find the claims of Leigh Jones serious or that I believe that rape is akin to stealing candy from the store. But the fact is that, sadly, rapes, rapes involving GHB, even rapes with serious violence, as alleged here, are quite common. But Category:American rapists (in which Boartz of course does not belong since he is innocent until proven otherwise) contains 138 names, a negligible fraction of convicted rapists. All the individual articles in the category are about serial rapists, serial killers, people convicted for particularly sick crimes which shocked the nation. Boartz, even if he were one day found guilty is not in that class. Pichpich (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You do sound cold. I think you make an odd argument, since this was clearly a particularly vicious rape. It certainly qualifies as "a particularly sick crime." This crime may not shock you, but it certainly shocks a lot of other people, nationwide. What gives the story legs, however, is the fairly obvious cover up by KBR; Halliburton subsequently distancing itself from the rape through divestment and statements; and, most of all, KBR's demonstrated immunity to all responsibility for anything it does in Iraq. If, under such protection, KBR treats American women this way, think what kind of consideration Iraqi women get. This is important stuff.

I'm comfortable with "alleged," however as it only means there's been no trial. And I gather there never will be? It might be good if someone can clarify the use of "alleged" and whether there is even a remote possibility of a criminal trial ever taking place. Eperotao (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Instead of "alleged," isn't the term, "person of interest" now more commonly-used? I'll wait to get some feedback before making the change, but I think it would be more impartial to describe Boartz as a "person of interest in the case," instead of "Boartz allegedly raped Jones and later confessed." Kingturtle (talk) 1:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

fix

Jamie Leigh Jones is not a member of armed forces and has never been. She is married to an active duty sailor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.151.142 (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it. Kingturtle (talk) 06:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Also her husband is not a naval officer. His bio sketch on their website describes him as an aviation mechanic. That would make him an enlisted sailor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.242.174 (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

fix

Jamie Leigh Jones' foundation website, which is already cited as a source in the entry, contains a biography stating that she was born in 1984. I changed the date in the article but it was unchanged (because I didn't cite my source), so as a new user I figured I'd better just leave a message until I learn the ropes. http://www.jamiesfoundation.com/Board.htm Tundralink (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I corrected it and cited the 1984 date. When a new IP editor's first edit is a one-digit date change, it looks like a test edit or vandalism (both of which we get a lot of) and most editors will revert it. Welcome aboard. Best, CliffC (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

note

Footnote 7, for "after which the rape kit disappeared (though it was recovered later)", is a bad link. I wasn't sure what the proper fix was (I made a good faith effort to find another source, which failed), citation needed versus deleting the now undocumented statement, so I'm punting.DoctorCaligari (talk) 05:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Well failing a workable link which points to a corroborative source I think it should be clearly stated that this is an uncorroborated claim at best. It is dishonest in my view to deliberately leave in a non working link because it misleads those readers of lazy reading habits in to thinking the statement is corroborated when it is not. So I suggest that the link is removed and that the claim is documented but is made clear that it is nonetheless unsubstantiated at present. GenerallyKnowledge (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/15/defence-contractors-rape-claim-block When the forensic evidence was handed to investigators two years later, crucial photographs and notes were missing. Dream Focus 17:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Franken Amendment

Throwing it out as a general question and a note to self: wouldn't it be appropriate for there to be a page for the Franken Amendment, and/or the appropriations bill? The 30 Republicans who voted for it are facing quite a backlash for being "pro-rape", even two months on. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes! Good idea. If someone is able to write it, that'd be great. Every article I create gets nominated for deletion for some reason, although usually saved(with three exceptions). Dream Focus 00:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Just searched for it [1] and found it mentioned in various articles, the first ones politicians who were against it. Good place for information to be found. Plus plenty of news coverage. Dream Focus 00:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Case falling to pieces

Might be good to work into the article.

• Jones accused an unknown KBR employee of spiking her drink with a date-rape drug. No such drug was found in her system, but testimony indicates that Jones drank more than she admitted and may have been drunk enough for amnesia.
• The original accusation was that of gang rape, but the evidence strongly suggests that sexual contact took place with just one man — who insists that the contact was consensual.
• She claimed that KBR locked her in a container and surrounded it with armed guards. Not only does KBR not have armed guards, the imprisonment accusation didn’t arise until two years after she first filed a sexual-harassment complaint over the incident with the EEOC.
• Jones also insisted that she never had any history of mental problems, but her medical records indicate that she had been prescribed medication for bipolar condition, an anti-depressant, and an anti-anxiety drug before she started working at KBR.
• Her medical records also “suggest” that Jones has made other accusations of rape and/or sexual assault, once at KBR and one time before her employment, separate from these allegations. The alleged incident at KBR predated her transfer to Iraq by a few months.

Why Jamie Leigh Jones Could Lose Her KBR Rape Case ZHurlihee (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That story is bias. KBR is shown clearly lying about whether they had gurkhas with machine guns. People that worked there said that they did. Common sense says they wouldn't be out there without some armed guards around. Whether anything happened before then is not relevant to this case. If the doctor didn't detect rape drugs, its not because they weren't there. And even if its just alcohol alone, it still counts as rape. The severe bruises and other damage assure without doubt that it was not consensual. No one is publishing information about how bad her breasts repair surgery is. Was it just something minor, or was it major? They don't deny there was damage there. I read other news of this in major creditable newspapers and none of them are stating things anywhere near like the magazine Mother Jones is telling them. Dream Focus 23:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This not a WP:FORUM, please leave your personal thoughts out of the discussion. The source is reliable and notable and adds a great deal of background to the article. Now for its inclusion into the main article. ZHurlihee (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I was commenting on what you claimed is good material to add to the article. If KBR has been shown without any reasonable doubt to be deliberately lying about one thing, then you should question everything else they are saying also. And I have looked through other news sources and not found all of this information. Is it covered somewhere else? Dream Focus 16:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It is good material, someone finnaly spent time digging into the case and the documents to get the whole story. ProPublica called it a "potentially paradigm shifting story". Do there need to be additional sources for this materia? ZHurlihee (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to have more than one news source say this. So far, I can't find that. Others have accused them as well. Dream Focus 17:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is about Jamie Leigh Jones not the others. Are you saying the Mother Jones story doesnt qualify as a WP:RS? ZHurlihee (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• A female doctor told her she was raped by more than one person. Jamie Leigh Jones - KBR Gang Rape ABC 20/20 Report [2]. 20/20 is a credible news program. They do their research. What they say is different that what the Mother Jones article says. They do have those containers used for living areas. They showed video footage of this. Another woman had complained she was locked in her room for three days when she complained about abuse. Dream Focus 18:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Once again I ask, are you saying the Mother Jones story doesnt qualify as a WP:RS? ZHurlihee (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Not if other reliable sources all contradict it, no it does not in this particular case. Information 20/20 showed does in fact contradict information Mother Jones has. A long running show with a team of skilled investigators is going to be more credible than a magazine article written by one person based on information given to them by a company trying to cover up its own problems. Dream Focus 18:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I am getting the impression that you haven’t read the MotherJones article. No where in the article does it state that Jones didn’t spend time in a shipping container (which doubled as a living space). Here is what the article specify lays out about this portion of Jones’s story.

The Evidence: KBR claims Jones was never imprisoned, and that she encountered no obstacles calling her family after seeking medical treatment. KBR also says that its employees, including security staff, don't carry guns. A 2006 investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) backs up KBR's story that the company placed Jones in a secure location before getting her home to Texas. This set of disputed facts, however, will not really be hashed out by the jury. The judge threw out Jones' charges that the supposed imprisonment constituted "retaliation" by KBR for reporting the rape, because Jones never mentioned this accusation in her original legal filings with the EEOC. (Federal law requires a plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies with the EEOC before pursuing a sexual harassment claim in federal court.) The false-imprisonment allegation didn't surface until two years after Jones' original rape complaint, when Jones hired a new lawyer.

Additionaly you characterize Mencimer's article as "based on information given to them by a company trying to cover up its own problems". Had you read the article, which I suspect you did not, you would see that Mencimer bases it on a wide number of sources from the original EEOC complaint, to trial testimony and from Jones' lawyer.

And speaking of her lawyer, he had this to say about the "gang rape":

Todd Kelly, Jones' lawyer, told Mother Jones that while he and Jones believe she was raped by multiple assailants, that issue will not be presented to the jury. "Although it is clear that she was raped by at least one person, we don't have the evidence to prove she was gang raped," he says.

I would encourage you to more thoroughly review the source if you are going to challenge it. ZHurlihee (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The article claims that the doctor didn't find any evidence of gang rape, while the 20/20 interview says that the doctor had said the opposite. Who do we believe? Is the doctor still working for that company? Would their story change for that reason? The article claims that a nurse said that Jamie Leigh Jones once exaggerated her injuries in a previous hospital visit about something unrelated, and other things I don't see with any reliable sources to backup. And that this nurse, if they even exist, apparently remembered this patient perfectly from that long ago and then came forward just now to claim this. Since you just have one person getting information, instead of a proper investigative team, mistakes can be made. The article is filled with nonsense which seems to be an attack against her character. Those who have read it and left comments in the comment section for it, overwhelmingly agree with me that it was written in a way to discredit her. The fact is, there was a rape kit which was handed over to the company, that then lost it. They have previously been accused of locking women up to keep them from reporting crimes. They lied about not having armed people there working for them. This company has been investigated repeatedly for lying about other things, not just rape. A company with a proven record for lying versus a woman there is absolutely no doubt was raped by at least one person. Dream Focus 18:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion on KBR is not notable here, and I must stress to you, again, that this is not a WP:FORUM. Additionally the comment section of the article is also not notable, so that too is irrelevant.

What the 20/20 interview said is immaterial in light of the facts. According to Jones, and since no one has interviewed Dr. Jodi Schultz the US Army physician who performed the examination we have only Jones' statement to go on here, the attending physician had this to say:

Dr. Schultz confirmed that I had been penetrated both vaginally and anally, and that I was “quite torn up down there.” She indicated that based upon the physical damage to my genitalia, that it was apparent that I had been raped. She stated that she didn’t know if I wanted to hear it or not, but that I had “also been sexually assaulted anally.”

So, no, the doctor found no evidence of “gang rape” as it were. Additionally, this allegation is so weak, Jones isn’t even presenting it at trail. Also, while the attending physician comments are secondhand through Jones, it needs to be reflected this way, for the sake of WP:Attribution.

As for your speculation into Jones’ prior history of hypochondria, once again its immaterial. It has been reported in a WP:RS. ZHurlihee (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Rewtite rape allegation section after jury finding

Given the jury verdict, the section regarding the allegation of gang rape seems like it should be rewritten. There is essentially no information that rebuts her claims so a reader would have difficulty understanding the verdict. I think we could use some balance here. 184.246.197.62 (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I added in a quote from the article. The jury wasn't allowed to hear the physical evidence, or of the past of the accused rapist, but were allowed to hear every little negative thing about her past. Dream Focus 19:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that the jury was allowed to hear the physical testimony. Jones said that she thought the physical evidence and her testimony would persuade the jury. Please cite the your source that states the physical evidence wasn't allowed in. That makes no sense and it is not what I have read.

But either way -- all trials have rules of evidence. The jury found that she was not raped. In other articles we label someone a rapist because they have been found guilty in a court of law -- even thought rape shield laws keep out the sexual history of the accuser. Hoping To Help (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• I had a link already there. And this wasn't a criminal case but a civil suit. The rules of evidence are different there. The Washington Post article says:

Jones said the civil trial wasn’t a fair fight. She said she felt she lost because the jury wasn’t allowed to hear details of her attacker’s past but were allowed to hear hers. Bortz said the sex was consensual.

Jones said she believed her bruises and the description of the rape would have swayed jurors.

“I just thought that the physical evidence would help. I guess the fact that my entire life was on display and (his) wasn’t” made a difference, Jones said.

I think you're misunderstanding the quote -- it is a little confusing the way it is worded. But what she is saying is that the physical evidence WAS allowed in -- and she thought that she would be able to win her case * because* the jury got to hear the physical evidence. Then she complains about the jury not being able to hear about the man's past -- and saying that is why she lost the case.

And I know this is a civil case and not a criminal case. But *more* evidence is allowed in civil cases than in criminal cases. Hoping To Help (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps the article should be reworded at that point to eliminate any confusion. Dream Focus 10:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Shipping crate/trailer

The Washington Post says she claimed to be put in a trailer. [3] Those things look like shipping crates, and perhaps were made from them. They show video footage of them in the 20/20 investigative news show about this. Dream Focus 19:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Reasons for undoing

TheologianOfSatan is a new user with no edits outside this article. I undid all of their edits. This includes the slanderous change of "assailant" to "casual sexual partner". Dream Focus 10:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Great. You have higher dignity and more rights than me because I'm "new" .. nothing at all to do with suppressing findings of Federal court — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheologianOfSatan (talk • contribs) 10:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Pointing out you have no edits outside of this article. And this was a civil suit, not a criminal case. There was no criminal trial, which would've allowed actual evidence to prove guilt or innocence. Dream Focus 10:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This case was brought before a grand jury which refused to indict. In a grand jury basically any evidence is allowed. And yes, this was a civil case -- but again, civil cases allow *more* evidence than criminal cases. A jury of her peers determined that the sex was consensual and that no rape occurred. Sure they might have it wrong. Just like in juries in criminal cases sometimes get it wrong. But we need to default to believing the results of the jury as reported by the reliable sources. Hoping To Help (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course there's no criminal trial - because there's no crime. Consensual sex between adults never amounts to crime in any US jurisdiction, or even in Iraq as far as I know — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheologianOfSatan (talk • contribs) 10:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As I've pointed out on WP:BLPN, we can report a jury's finding, but we can't report our interpretation of that finding. So, if a jury finds a person guilty, for example, we can say the person was convicted, but we cannot say the person is actually guilty. The converse is equally true. If a jury finds a person not guilty, we cannot say ourselves that the person is innocent. Even though there is a different standard of proof in civil and criminal trials, that doesn't alter the equation. If, as here, a civil jury doesn't find that Jones was assaulted, that doesn't mean that her allegations are untrue, just that based on the evidence, a jury made a determination. We don't get to make determinations as an encyclopedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It is true that when a jury finds a person not guilty we can't say that s/he is innocent -- but that is because a finding of not guilty is *very* different than a finding of innocent. Once in a while the government will actually declare someone innocent - such as the in the Duke Lacross case. And you will notice in that article we state that Ms. Mangum falsely accused the three men of rape. And in this present case, the jury didn't just fail to find that Jones was assaulted -- they made an affirmative finding that the sex was consensual. You seem to be saying that if someone is found guilty of murder in a court of law, then we can't refer to them as a murderer ... but instead we must always say "a person that has been convicted of murder". But you'll notice we refer to Ted Bundy as a "serial killer, rapist, kidnapper and necrophile".Hoping To Help (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in what we do in other articles (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). However, putting aside the more contentious issue of a criminal trial as there is none in the Jones case, here we cannot say that her allegations were false. We can only say that, based on the evidence presented to the jury, it found that the sex was consensual.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you are doing a good job improving the article -- so I don't want to discourage you. But I do want to continue the exploration of this current topic to see if we can come to an understanding. You referenced WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which states: "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes."

So while I agree such comparisons *can* be misused -- it can be very useful to look for widespread patterns that appear elsewhere in Wikipedia. As such, Wikipedia has large categories such as WP:Category:American_kidnappers and WP:Category:American_rapists. These aren't worded as "people believed to be American who have been convicted of rape on the limited evidence that was allowed at trial." Saying "falsely accused of rape" is much less cumbersome than having to say each time "accused of rape but at trial the sex was found to be consensual." Hoping To Help (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This was not a criminal trial, and it would simply be incorrect (and, in my view, a BLP violation) to state that she "falsely" accused anyone of anything. Any comparisons to criminal conviction articles, regardless of whether I agree with the wording in those articles, is flawed. How does the article look to you otherwise now? It's not perfect, but it's much tighter than it was. Do you think the article is reasonably neutral now?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You've hugely improved the article. And it is much more streamlined, better organized, and much more balanced. Thank you! :-) Unfortunately, it still has a long way to go. It is still dominated by Jones claims. And there are still places where her claims are worded in a way that they look like fact. It would be useful to integrate many of the points included in the Mother Jones article. Hoping To Help (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, you say that a criminal trial is different -- which is true. But to just dismiss it out of hand as flawed is unhelpful. Please point out the *relevant* differences and why these differences lead you to believe that any comparisons are useless. And I also repeat my request that state what you believe is the correct bar for referring to a rape allegation as false. Also, my belief is that it is a WP:BLP violation to have any sentence that alleges a rape without, in the same sentence, pointing out that a court of law found that the sex was consensual and that no rape occurred. Hoping To Help (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have too much more to say on this issue. When a person is convicted, a jury has found that person guilty, and the person is convicted. Frankly, if the crime were murder, for example, I would still prefer to call the person a convicted murderer rather than a murderer, but, to some, that might seem like a quibble. But even after a conviction, if a person claims he's innocent, the jury's conviction doesn't mean the claim is "false". Rather, the jury believes, based on the evidence presented, that he's not innocent. In the civil context, it makes me cringe even more to say that a plaintiff's claims are "false" simply because the jury didn't accept them. There's nothing wrong with saying that someone alleges something. The whole point of using the word "allege" is it's not a fact, but a claim. In any event, the article certainly makes it clear that the jury rejected her allegations. I don't see a problem leaving it as is. But I do see a problem for Wikipedia to say that she falsely claimed something. That's not our business.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

KBR Incident

this section could have been written by Jones' lawyer. There's almost no balance. For instance, the claim that she was given a "date-rape" drug is unchallenged, even though a toxicology screen did not find such a substance in her blood. The claim about being gang raped was rejected for lack of evidence by a jury. It should be made clear in the text that Jones' claim was uncorroborated. The text is also unclear about whether she was held in a container or not. Again, the jury sided with KBR's account, which was that they didn't use these. As it stands, it would be very difficult for a new reader to understand the jury's verdict by just this article. A reasonable reader would infer there was bias in this article and look elsewhere to become informed. Ronnotel (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't yet reviewed this, but see my comments above.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we make a determination. Only that the section lacks balance. In particular, the Mother Jones article form this week make some rather stunning claims about Jones' credibility based on the trial record. I think we need to take a careful look at where this article cites Jones' claims and make sure they are balanced with information that came out at trial. Ronnotel (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ronnotel. Much of the article is written by stating things as facts that are really just assertions made by Jones or her lawyer. First we need to clearly attribute the assertion to Jones each time. Additionally, we should include the defenses side of the story. Each claim by Jones should be balanced by what the other side claims. This is especially true since it is the defenses side that the jury ended up believing. I'm not saying we should state the defenses side as fact -- but we should *include* their side. Hoping To Help (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't finished working on the KBR Incident section. It's a lot of work to get it "right". My guess is that it needs to be combined with the lawsuit itself so it's not so confusing as to what she alleges, what KBR alleges, and what the jury found. But I'm not going to combine the sections until I finish working on them separately. Hopefully, that will address your concerns, which I think are legitimate.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You've hugely improved the article. And it is much more streamlined, better organized, and much more balanced. Thank you! :-) Unfortunately, it still has a long way to go. It is still dominated by Jones claims. And there are still places where her claims are worded in a way that they look like fact. It would be useful to integrate many of the points included in the Mother Jones article. Hoping To Help (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I see there've been a bunch of relatively minor changes since yesterday, none of which I have any problem with. Otherwise, I'm probably done. I may look at it again if I have some time, and I'll continue to watch it, but not much else. Hopefully some of the additions of "she says" in the article have addressed your concerns.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Compelling arbitration

The way it normally works is a plaintiff files a lawsuit against a company. The company says there is an arbitration clause that requires that any claims brought by the plaintiff against the company be arbitrated. The company then files a motion to compel arbitration (a demand). Although some of the earlier history of this case is complex, that's effectively what happened here, although the district court found that the claims were mixed. If you look at the 5th Circuit's opinion, cited in the article, it says on page 6: "In November 2007, Halliburton/KBR moved to compel arbitration of Jones’ claims and stay the proceedings."--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

My objection to the word demanded is that it can be read as if KBR wanted arbitration -- as opposed to wanting no dispute resolution process -- but, *preferring* arbitration over court (and believing that the employment agreement required that path). And KBR's filing was to the court and so legally it was a request made to the court. Any lawyer that makes a "demand" to the court is risking being sanctioned. I'll change it to use the word compel. Hopefully, that will satisfy both of us.Hoping To Help (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think your use of the word "compel" was an improvement. I tweaked the sentence a little.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Inline attribution

I'm pretty clear that we don't need inline attribution here. A footnote makes it clear where this information comes from - The Guardian, clearly a reliable source. We generally use inline attribution ("according to The Guardian...") to attribute opinions, but generally not to convey material presented as factual by a reliable source.

The edit summary here suggests that one editor's skepticism is the reason for using inline attribution. I don't think that's good enough. Has any other reliable source contested this? If not, we're not usually in the habit of editorially picking which parts of a reliable source we present as facts and which we present as supposition. That's original research at best, and editorial agenda-pushing at worst. Can we discuss why inline attribution is being used here? MastCell ^Talk 00:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I was about to undo you when someone else did. I found with a simple Google news archive search that other newspapers list the same information. You don't need to quote what newspaper it came from in this instance. Dream Focus 00:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup. It's a pretty deliberate attempt to discredit Jones, since negative facts weren't given the same treatment, and it appears in plenty of sources other than the Guardian. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everyone. I was the "someone else". :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese -- I would appreciate if you would assume good faith. I explicitly attributed the source b/c I was following best WP practices. My reasons are as follows:

1) In my experience, on other WP articles, if an assertion is controversial it is best and safest to explicitly reference the source.

2) I think the newspaper didn't mean to state it as a fact. It immediately follows a sentence that cites Jones as the source. Most likely the second sentence is also from Jones -- they just didn't bother saying so again b/c it makes awkward prose and/or they made a mistake.

3) It is good form for newspaper articles to cite and name their sources. They have to get it from somewhere. And if it comes from an "unnamed source" we are often told to doubt its credibility. And even with "unnamed sources" we are told where they work for or who they are close to so that we can judge the general reliability. Here we are told nothing.

4) How do they know it is true? They must have gotten it from somewhere? Most likely they got it from Jones.

5) I looked over the WP article and I couldn't find any "anti-Jones" facts that aren't explicitly referenced to a person or document. Besides things easily checked by public documents or where the reporter could have been a witness themselves -- such as: Jones lost at trial.

6) All other reliable sources that I have been able to find attribute the statement to Jones. Except for one -- which attributes it to the Guardian. This by itself calls into question the idea that there is a source for this other than Jones. Does the Guardian really have a scoop on this? If so why don't they name their source?

7) Again, it isn't that I have a hard time believing that the State Department or KBR lost the photos and notes. Big organizations are great at misplacing things (sometimes on purpose -- sometimes not). I just think that the reliable sources, taken as a whole, reveal that they haven't found proof of this allegation outside of Jones.

So my question to you all is:

A) What is the magazines source if not Jones? And why should we interpret their statement as coming from anyone besides Jones?

B) Also, please point out the controversial"anti-Jones" statements where the source hasn't been explicitly referrenced, b/c I think those need to be changed as well. Hoping To Help (talk) 05:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You've asserted that it appears in plenty of other reliable sources. I did a search myself and couldn't find them. All the reliable sources I've found either reference Jones or reference the Guardian. But if there really are *lots* of other reliable sources that state it as a fact then I was wrong and it didn't need to be changed. Please list the other reliable sources -- that would be helpful. Hoping To Help (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Houston Chronicle, OpEdNews, Cleverland Leader, etc. Search those articles for the word "missing" to get to the parts that say this. Dream Focus 09:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Your examples make my point. Of the three you list only the Houston Chronicle counts as a Reliable Source. But lets take a look at each or your examples in turn.

Houston Chronicle: It has three sentences with the word missing. The first is: "And at some point, some of the medical evidence apparently went missing." The key word here is "apparently". Then later it has these two sentences: "Eventually, the agent found the kit, but the photographs and doctor's notes were missing, Jones said. KBR officials say they have no knowledge of any materials that have gone missing." So even your most Reliable Source still refers to Jones as the source of the claim and also feels compelled to include KBR's (admittedly weak) rebuttal. But it all adds up to: Jones is making a claim -- and no one else is really sure if it is true or not.

OpEdNews: Your second example is from a website that calls itself Op Ed News -- and we don't consider Op Eds reliable sources. But even this article doesn't back up the claim we are currently making in the WP article. Opednew.com only says: "For example, officials who improperly gave KBR over the rape kit collected from the incident could be seen as having complicity in the failure to protect evidence or failure to pursue evidence-tampering charges once it went "missing"." This is a vague accusation -- and doesn't explicitly say photos and notes were permanently lost as opposed to the rape kit going missing for a period of time.

Cleveland Leader: Your third example, The Cleveland Leader, does not inspire confidence, nor is generally considered an especially reliable source. But it is the only reference of the three that supports the WP article as presently written. But this one example does not qualify as a reliable source -- and it certainly doesn't qualify as "plenty of sources".

Conclusion: Of your three examples only one actually states the photos went missing without attributing it to Jones -- and that source doesn't qualify as a Reliable Source. And you certainly haven't presented "plenty of sources" as you previously claimed. And the only reliably source you list, The Houston Chronicle, actually is in support of not only referencing Jones as the only source for the claim -- but also including KBR's rebuttal. Thanks for supporting my position. :-) Hoping To Help (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering the trial has shown Jones' story to be "factually challenged" (putting it as nicely as I can,). we shouldnt be taking anything this woman says at face value. But I would like to elaborate on DF's sources, emphasizing the more important pieces.

*Eventually, the agent found the kit, but the photographs and doctor's notes were missing, Jones said . - The Houston Chronicle

This statement, that there was evidence missing from the rape kite, is attributable only to Jones. I am not going to bother even looking at the OpEd News link as the low quality of the source prohibits us from using it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZHurlihee (talk • contribs) 13:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to a list of Cleveland newspapers. It list eight papers -- but Cleveland Leader doesn't even make the list: http://www.newspapers24.com/world-cities/cleveland-newspapers/ Hoping To Help (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Absent some more definitive source, I've changed my mind. I've been scouring sources for the last while, and it appears that the mishandling of the rape kit is an allegation made by Jones and has not been confirmed by any other source. Supposedly, the rape kit was handed over to the State Department. It is Jones who says that someone at the State Department said that stuff was missing from it. There's no confirmation from the State Department or even the naming of any individual in the Department who supposedly told Jones that. My suggestion then is that we report this as one of her allegations and attribute it to her (not to the Guardian). Here's a good article to cite for her allegations (but there are others that are attributed to her as well): Slate article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I would agree. ZHurlihee (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

And as others have already said, the Houston Chronicle article makes it clear that this is Jones's story, which is pretty much consistent with all I've read. I think that some sources, like the Guardian, may have simply omitted that aspect, but it's important for us to distinguish who alleged what.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the article and cited the Chronicle. Hopefully, everyone will agree it's now more accurate.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• The Cleveland Leader is a reliable source. There was a newspaper by that name that merged with another newspaper previously, but I don't think the two are related. The current one states its five years old. It has paid editors, and is obviously a legitimate newspaper. And when 20/20 (US television series) covered this news story, they of course did some fact checking. Dream Focus 16:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the Cleveland Leader is a reliable source. However, I've read the article in the Leader, and it essentially repeats what is said in other sources that attribute the information to Jones (some of it is word for word). We cannot report this is a fact, as opposed to an allegation, based on a full reading of all of the reliable sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with Bbb23's edit, after reviewing the additional sources. MastCell ^Talk 16:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Cleveland Leader is a good reminder that we must carefully evaluate whether something is a Reliable Source. And it is also a lesson that even papers that might normally be reliable sources can easily get carried away when reporting on a such a "perfect story" as this. It has the perfect "victim": a young, very pretty, blond woman. And it has the perfect "villains": group of drunk, macho men and big, wealthy Haliburtan/KBR. So it is easy for a reporter/editor (and for WP editors) to get carried away.

Here is an example from the Daily Beast: " Although promised living quarters that would provide both privacy and security, Jones was housed in an all-male dormitory where, four days after her arrival, she was drugged and brutally gang-raped by KBR employees. "[[4]]

We know from the lawsuit that she wasn't housed in an all-male dormitory -- that was her original complaint, and then KBR showed proof that there were 25 women in the dormitory and she amended her complaint to match. We also know that it can't be stated as a fact that she was "drugged and brutally gang-raped by KBR employees." But this source, which in general is much more RS than the Cleveland Leader, makes the assertion as if it was an undisputed fact.

My point is that we must be very careful about any information we get from articles that were written before the trial completed. Hoping To Help (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Near the beginning of this thread Roscelese stated:

• "Yup. It's a pretty deliberate attempt to discredit Jones, since negative facts weren't given the same treatment, and it appears in plenty of sources other than the Guardian."

Especially given that we've decided to be *more* cautious than what I was proposing. It would be nice (and go a long way toward WP:GOODFAITH ) if Roscelese took back her personal attack on me where she maligns my motives for my edit. Hoping To Help (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Protected

Three days. See the result of the complaint at WP:AN3#User:Roscelese reported by User:Haymaker (Result: Protected). An editor who came close to a block for reasons of WP:BLP was User:TheologianOfSatan who by coincidence is now indefinitely blocked as a sock. Others who have an interest in this article are encouraged to join the discussion at WP:BLPN#Jamie Leigh Jones. Under our policy, this article needs to stay factual and neutral and can't go beyond what is reported in the reliable sources. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

At this stage of the article, I don't have a problem with full protection, but, in my view, as I just stated at BLPN, the article is in reasonably good shape, although there is always room for improvement. Also, frankly, I don't see the point of continuing the discussion at BLPN (as opposed to here) unless there's still an editor who believes there is a BLP violation in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess from my perspective, the existence of this article under its current title is a violation of WP:BLP1E. This is an otherwise low-profile individual whom reliable sources cover only in the context of a single event. Wikipedia's policies suggest that it would be more appropriate to cover this material as part of our article on KBR or, if a standalone article is warranted, under a title like KBR rape allegations and focused on the incident. We shouldn't be producing rehashes of controversial incidents and disguising them as biographies (which, I think, is the essence of WP:BLP1E). I agree that we may as well discuss it here as on WP:BLP/N, although hopefully the posting there will solicit more outside and dispassionate input. MastCell ^Talk 16:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree the article is misnamed. I wouldn't merge it with the KBR article, though. I also don't like the name "KBR rape allegations" because it implies that a company can rape a person. I realize that part of what makes the article noteworthy is that it involves KBR and Iraq. I also realize that Jones sued KBR, as well as one named person she accused of rape. But it's still a misleading name. A few possibilities: "Jamie Leigh Jones sexual assault case against KBR"; "Jamie Leigh Jones sexual assault case against KBR and its employees" (kinda long); "Jones v. KBR".--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, your suggestions are all better than mine. I don't really have a strong feeling about how we title the article, except that framing it as a biography seems inappropriate per WP:BLP1E. I'd support pretty much any of your suggestions, or we could brainstorm some more. MastCell ^Talk 17:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't use "Jones v. KBR" because that's court case naming structure and the article isn't only about the court case, but "Jamie Leigh Jones sexual assault case against KBR" seems good - it's long, but so is "Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case." Sometimes people have long names. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on my take on WP:BLP1E I would certainly support a merge of this material (with significant reduction in content) to the KBR. Jones is notable for nothing other than making highly inflammatory allegations that have been rejected by jury trial. I have no doubt she is sincere in her belief that she was wronged. However, her evidence and credibility did not withstand examination under due process. Therefore, the current article greatly outweighs what can be supported per WP:DUE. I would say no more than a paragraph or two highlighting the claims and the fact that they were rejected at trial should be enough. Ronnotel (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the information in the article is more notable than that. The combination of the allegations, the investigations, the Congressional testimony, the legal issues related to jurisdiction, the comments by Congresspersons, as well as the trial and the verdict make it much more than unsubstantiated allegations.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Bbb23, particularly since this incident played a role in the passage of a law which restricted government contractors from mandating arbitration in cases of assault etc. MastCell ^Talk 17:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

20/20 news report

• ABC news shows the entire 20/20 report from 12/14/2007 at [5] for Jamie Leigh Jones and this other woman that reported being attacked. The KBR website for the "facts" claim they do not have armed guards on their base. But the video footage of that area shows guards with machine guns. The shipping container they show in the video, is also referred to a trailer, it the same thing. The lawyers and the credible long established award winning news program surely did research on her claims. Dream Focus 17:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I watched the video. What do you want to add or change in the article and why?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I've watched the 20/20 more than once -- and I just watched it again. I don't see that they are saying anything unique about Jones. In fact 20/20 says almost nothing. They frame the whole program as "Jamie Lee telling her story." And almost every sentence is qualified by some form of "according to Jamie" or "she says".

Also, there is one short shot of a man with a machine gun. But they don't identify the person as an employee of KBR. It is one shot of many which are all probably file footage from Iraq. Many of the shots are clearly of Iraq in general and not specifically KBR.

They do show a picture of what looks like a shipping container -- but they don't identify it as being from KBR, but instead of being "similar" to ones KBR uses. But either way I'm still not sure what your point is. Propose specific wording and then we can discuss that.

If there is something from the program that you feel should be included in the article then include the quote here and give us a time stamp of when it occurs in the video. Thanks.

While I was writing his Bbb23 wrote his comment -- which I agree with (and is much more succinct :-) Hoping To Help (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with much of the above, propose specific language and we can discuss its inclusion. And FYI, those arent machine guns they were holding, they were assault rifles. ZHurlihee (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• I was thinking some of that information might be valid to include. And no one cares what the official term is. Many people just call them machine guns, since they fire automatically. Dream Focus 18:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Dream Focus -- There is no reason to say "no one cares" -- that is much more insulting than his pointing out the type of weapon they were carrying. Personally, I found his feedback interesting -- he included links which made it easy for it to be a learning opportunity. So I for one appreciated the information. Hoping To Help (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A machine gun fires a full size rifle cartridge automatically, an assault rifle does not. Furthermore, fully automatic assault rifles haven’t been issued in decades. I think its very important what the official term is because if 20/20 cant get small details like that right, how are they supposed to get the big ones? At any rate, what specific language do you want to see changed. ZHurlihee (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

They actually stated that she, who like many people didn't know the difference, said the guards had machine guns. Whether they were assault rifles or not, doesn't make a bit of difference here. The fact remains that KBR still insist they did not have armed guards on the facility. I was thinking it'd be nice to have a section listing her claims, KBR claims, and then that of credible sources that contradicted either of them. Anyway, its a good link to add to the article once the lock is up. Dream Focus 19:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I certainly have no problem with it being used as an WP:EL, but if you are proposing a list of who said what and who lied about what, the MotherJones article will make an excelent source for that as well. ZHurlihee (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Dream Focus - You keep bringing up that KBR insists that they do not have armed guards. You're right. What is your point? How do you want to change the article? Please make a specific suggestion. Hoping To Help (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

rape kit

• http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4099514&page=1

ABC news spoke to Department of Defense Inspector General Claude Kicklighter.

Kicklighter's office said that the State Department had said its security officials had Jones' rape kit in their possession at one point.

The State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security told Kicklighter "evidence in the rape kit was collected by a U.S. Army doctor and was later provided to [the Bureau of Diplomatic Security]," the IG's office wrote to Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Alaska, who had asked about Jones' case.

Need to add that to the article. Confirm that they did in fact loose the rape kit, there no doubt about that. Dream Focus 20:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in that source indicating it was lost or that any material in it was misplaced or mishandled. ZHurlihee (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

There's some issues raised (but not really answered) about the chain of custody of the rape kit, but there's nothing in the ABC article that supports Jones's allegations about missing evidence. I don't see the ABC article as being helpful to the WP article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Move

Per WP:BLP1E this really needs to be moved to an "event" title and refactored to meet that - for our usual BLP and privacy reasons. There seems no notability to Jones beyond this event. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup, there seems to be quite a bit of support for that; see discussion under the heading #Protected, above. MastCell ^Talk 20:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Not just the event of her attack, but the years of coverage for it and how she couldn't go to trail, she then speaking before congress, and because of her new laws being passed. Dream Focus 01:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Dream Focus, please remove "her attack" and replace it with "the alleged attack". As it stands now your sentence is a severe BLP violation. Hoping To Help (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Fabricated

Kaldari, an admin, changed the article to say "fabricated" instead of being a liar. An excellent change. Along those same lines, the word "successfully" should also be eliminated. The sentence would then read:

The defense argued that Jones fabricated her story of being drugged and raped because she was embarrassed about the consensual sex and wanted to get out of her year-long contract with KBR three days after she arrived.

The jury may have concluded that their argument was "successful", but (1) it's not for us to say and (2) there's more than just the fabrication in the sentence, there's also the reason for it. We can't effectively agree with the defense by saying "successfully". In any event, it's not supported by the first source - not sure about the WSJ because it's experiencing "technical difficulties". In fact, I'm not sure that the current wording is accurately supported.

Not sure whether to do this as an edit request, but, if nothing else, this will remind me that it should be done.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with removal of "successfully"; as I said earlier, there's no evidence that the jury endorsed the entire argument, including the part about getting out of her contract etc., so we cannot say that the argument was successful. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Just want to quickly note that I made the change purely as a WP:BLP issue, as the sources did not back up our claim that the jury believed she was "a liar". The argument above also seems to make sense, but I'll leave it to the consensus of editors here to decide on further changes. Kaldari (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to come up with a wording that eliminates the word "successfully" and more accurately reflects the sources, hopefully before protection is lifted. It's not so urgent it can't wait.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the word "successfully" needs to be removed -- but once that is done the word liar should go back in, since that is the word the source uses. And multiple other sources support that the defense has been consistently asserting that Jones is a liar. The sentence isn't trying to state a fact -- it is just sharing part of the defenses argument before and during trial. This source says: "Defense attorneys throughout the four-week trial painted Jones as a liar, accusing her of making up the story of being drugged and raped by several KBR employees." It is hardly surprising that the defense would argue that a prosecution witness is a liar. Please explain how including this is a BLP issue??Hoping To Help (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's part of what's wrong with the assertion, even as worded now and without the word "successfully". The word "argued" is a legal term. There is only one time when attorneys argue to the jury, and that is after the close of evidence. The source you quote is an interpretation/characterization of what happened during the trial. If we're going to describe the trial, we can rely on reliable sources for facts reported about the trial, but this sentence is not that. It's an opinion - perhaps eminently reasonable, but still an opinion - of the reporter. For example, if a source says that defense counsel stated in closing argument that Jones said x but the evidence said y, that would be okay. Or if a reliable source said that the defense put on a witness that said x (and what the witness said, if believed, would indicate that Jones lied), that would be okay (not the lie part). However, the more I look at this sentence in the article, the more troubled I am that it can be salvaged at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are misinterpreting what is allowed in Wikipedia. Very little in life is pure facts -- most everything has some amount of interpretation. Courtroom standards of truth mean that you can't say someone was drunk. You need to say they stumbled, they smelled of alcohol, etc.

And as far as argue being a legal term -- yes it is, but this isn't a legal brief and so we use the lay meaning of words. There are lots of "terms of art" in law and other fields that give words special meanings *in those contexts*. But even using the legal meaning of arguing only after testimony has finished -- that still could be where the author is drawing their conclusions from. What makes you believe that they didn't hear/read the closing arguments? Hoping To Help (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

[outdent] I propose the following wording as consistent with the sources as a whole.

• "The defense successfully argued that Jones fabricated her story of being drugged and raped. They said she was motivated by her embarrassment about the consensual sex and that she wanted to get out of her year-long contract with KBR three days after she arrived."

And I'm fine with using the word fabricated if people prefer that over "lied when she told her story" or "was a liar that fabricated her story". Hoping To Help (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but if Wikipedia is describing a trial, then the word "argued" has to be used in its legal sense, not in its lay sense. I'm not okay with the wording at all. At this point, I favor eliminating the sentence. Note, too, the difference in the way the Chronicle reports the plaintiff's argument ("Jones' attorney Ron Estefan told jurors in closing arguments ..."), whereas what the same reporter says about the defense is clearly a summary of the entire trial ("Defense attorneys throughout the four-week trial painted Jones as a liar ..."). In any event, it's unnecessary to the article. The article reports Jones's allegations and the jury's findings. That should be sufficient, although if more concrete stuff about the defense's closing argument or even about specific evidence presented to the jury could be found in a reliable source, that might be acceptable.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23, I believe you mean well but you are putting forth an interpretation of BLP that isn't supported in the rest of Wikipedia. The vast majority of BLP articles (that are more than a stub) contain statements that are more than just dry facts. But adjectives, descriptions, and labels that are by their very nature interpretations. One reason we go to Secondary Sources is so that they can make interpretations and evaluations, and yes conclusions about the world. Hoping To Help (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I never once mentioned anything about BLP, just the accuracy of the assertion. Your generalized statements about Wikipedia don't take into account context. Each assertion in every article depends on many variables, not the least of which is context. Your proposed wording is inaccurate, and even an accurate rendering of the reporter's summary doesn't need to be included in the article. At this point, I believe the sentence should be removed completely, and I've given my reasons. I'll let others weigh in on the matter.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2011

I'm willing to compromise and use this wording instead:

• "The defense successfully put forth a case that Jones fabricated her story of being drugged and raped. They said she was motivated by her embarrassment about the consensual sex and that she wanted to get out of her year-long contract with KBR three days after she arrived." Hoping To Help (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Another possibility:

• "The jury decided that Jones fabricated her story of being drugged and raped. The defense argued that she was motivated by her embarrassment about the consensual sex and that she wanted to get out of her year-long contract with KBR three days after she arrived." Hoping To Help (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The jury found that the sex was consensual and that no rape occurred.

• "The jury was not convinced by her case." How about that? Did the jury make a statement saying they thought she was lying? Or did they simply not have enough evidence to convince them one way or the other? Dream Focus 05:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Dream Focus's comment is a perfect example of why we need this in the article and why we need to make the language very strong and clear.Dream Focus is an editor of the article, and I must assume that s/he has read the article -- and yet s/he still isn't sure what the jury ruled!

--> For the record: they didn't just rule that Jones failed to make her case. They came to an affirmative and explicit ruling that the sex was consensual. Hoping To Help (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That, then, I think, is the language to use - i.e. affirmative rather than transitive. SO instead of saying she lied etc. Note that the defence presented a case that the story was fabriacted. Then just note that the jury decided the sex was consensual. Factual and to the point. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Is that actually true? I took another look at the sources and I don't see it, and that is a massive BLP issue omg. If the sources do not say the jury decided it was consensual, we cannot infer that from their rejection of the rape charges. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verification, not truth ... and in this case we do have verification:

Jones got her day in court, and on Friday, a federal jury deciding her civil suit in Houston decided she was not raped, vindicating a company that charged she had exaggerated or made up her story, in part for fame, publicity and a book deal.

A day after closing arguments in the four-week trial, the jury of eight men and three women found Ms. Jones wasn't raped, and that KBR had not committed fraud in its employment contract.

Remarkable what a quick Google news search can turn up. ZHurlihee (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What exactly word for word did the judge or jury's foreman say at the closing of the trial? Dream Focus 11:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we just use the language more commonly used in reportage when the jury decision goes for the defense, say: "The jury rejected Jones' allegations and found for the defense on all counts", etc. Ronnotel (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The phrase the "jury rejected the allegations" is the phrase usually used in criminal cases where a case must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. And that is what is confusing a some WP editors -- and so is also likely to confuse our readers.

That wording can remind them of criminal cases where the defendant wins the case -- but the jury may actually believe him to be guilty ... the prosecution just didn't prove it beyond all reasonable doubt.

While that is not what happened in this civil trial -- the jury explicitly determined (by a preponderance of the evidence) that no rape occurred because the jury determined that the sex was consensual. Hoping To Help (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm totally at a loss on this discussion. The article currently says: "On July 8, the jury found that the sex was consensual and also denied her fraud claim against KBR." What more do we need?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

But the sources don't say that. We always have to be careful not to draw our own conclusions from what the sources say, but because this is a BLP, it's particularly important that we don't say "the jury ruled that the sex was consensual" if our sources do not say this. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You're correct. The cited source for that sentence says: "KBR applauded the jury’s verdict, which in addition to rejecting Jones’ claims that she was raped also denied her fraud claim against the company." That's not the same thing as the assertion. We should reword the assertion to comply with that source and the other sources. Most of the sources I've seen say the same thing (rejecting rape). However, a short NYT piece says: "A former employee of the military contractor KBR Inc. who said she was drugged and raped while working in Iraq lost her lawsuit against KBR on Friday after a federal jury in Houston concluded that the sex was consensual." ([6]). It's the only one I've seen worded that way.

As to the the original point of this section, though, the "argument" sentence should still be removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I was clearly wrong for not including the correct citation right where it was needed Ooops!! My MISTAKE!! I shouldn't have believed the WP editors when they stated, with absolute certainty, that the existing citation didn't support that the jury believed that the sex was consensual.

Because, now I notice, that the first citation is by the Reliable Source The Houston Chronicle and it clearly states:

• The firefighter “has insisted that he had consensual sex with Jones. The jury agreed.”

I’ll try not to be so gullible in the future! My bad. ;-) Hoping To Help (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: NYT, I think we're bound to treat it the same way as the Guardian source discussed above: while it's theoretically a reliable source, the wall-to-wall coverage this case has received means that if only one source says it, we should be wary. Let's rephrase the relevant sentences to comply with the other sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

My goodness, we do seem to be re-living the Inline Attribution/Guardian discussion -- in that the same people seem to be making many of the same mistakes and engaging in the same rush to judgement.

In the Guardian discussion people were overly eager to use the sentence from the Guardian as stating a fact, even though the paper most likely made a *mistake* by forgetting to insert "said Jones" -- as they had to do for almost every other sentence, because, for the most part, she was their only source. And so the paper was NOT even trying to state as a fact that evidence was lost -- they were just passing along Jones' accusation.

For them to have a scoop on whether some of the evidence went missing they would need a source -- which they would then refer to -- it isn't something a reporter could know/evaluate on their own.

But in this case -- it is easy for the reporter to evaluate this situation directly -- all they have to do is attend the trial or read the court documents. So this is a very different situation than the one with the Guardian. Hoping To Help(talk) 04:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the overwhelming weight of the reliable sources all say similar things (reject the rape and reject the fraud). The sentence should be reworded to reflect that.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm ... again some people seem to have a hard time seeing/believing articles that protect the BLP interests of the firefighter. But with a little looking you can find that Slate.com, The New York Time, The Washington Post, MSNBC.com, The Houston Chronicle, and the Wall Street Journal, and many others all state explicitly that the jury found: either, that the sex was consensual or that she was not raped.

When both the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal are both reporting it -- I don't see how it can be ignored. They are at the top of the pecking order when it comes to being a Reliable Source for National News. And both of these citations have previously been referenced in this very discussion (one of them by you). And I would argue (and I believe I'm confident I can prove) that these are the sources doing the more accurate reporting in this particular instance. Hoping To Help (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please provide the quotes from these sources which state affirmatively that the jury found that the sex was consensual. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)

Ok ... be careful what you ask for ;-) here come the citations ...

But our discussion on the talk page clearly shows that a number of editors are inclined to dismiss the verifiability of that phrase even when given both The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal as citations. So I propose that we add all of the citations below to the article -- just so the phrase isn’t removed in the future by editors who believe: "it can’t possible be true - the New York Times and Wall Street Journal must be wrong -- their reporters have no experience covering civil litigation!!" Hoping To Help (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Citations for: “the jury found the sex was consensual”

• http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/09/us/09brfs-Kbr.html

A former employee of the military contractor KBR Inc. who said she was drugged and raped while working in Iraq lost her lawsuit against KBR on Friday after a federal jury in Houston concluded that the sex was consensual.

• http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/07/09/jamie_leigh_jones_loses_rape_case.html

But jurors in the case against the Houston, Texas-based company decided in the end that Jones's sexual encounter was consentual, rendering other charges moot.

• http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43681446/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/woman-loses-iraq-rape-case-against-contractor/

Jurors rejected claims that Jones was raped and also her fraud claim against KBR. They agreed with [the firefighter], who said the sex was consensual.

• http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/7645236.html

[The defendant] has insisted that he had consensual sex with Jones. The jury agreed.

• http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/236732-woman-loses-rape-case-against-former-employer

A federal jury in Houston has ruled Jamie Leigh Jones, whose case became a call-to-action for reform in arbitration clauses in contracts, was not raped.

Jones had sued former employer Kellogg, Brown and Root, alleging the company created a hostile sexual environment that led to her gang-rape while living at one of the company's camps in 2005. The company, a subsidiary of Halliburton, had argued a mandatory arbitration clause in her employment contract had prevented her from suing the company in open court.

An appeals court sided with Jones on that issue, but jurors ruled Friday that Jones and [the firefighter] had engaged in consensual sex.

• http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20110709/NEWS/307099986/1006/NEWS

A former KBR Inc. employee who said she was drugged and raped while working in Iraq lost her civil lawsuit against the military contractor Friday after a federal jury in Houston concluded that the sex was consensual.

• http://www.indianexpress.com/news/us-woman-loses-iraq-rape-case-against-military-contractor/815195/

After investigations failed to establish criminal charges, jurors not only rejected Jones’ allegations that she was raped, but also her fraud claim against KBR. They agreed with [the defendant], who said the sex was consensual, Fox News reports.

• http://www.newser.com/story/123016/jamie-leigh-jones-loses-rape-case-in-houston-against-kbr-military-contractor.html

One of the firefighters she singled out in the suit said the sex was consensual, and the jury agreed. Jones had been seeking an estimated $114 million in the civil suit.

• http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/texas-woman-loses-iraq-rape-case-against-kbr-1.3013412?qr=1

... Friday after a federal jury concluded that the sex was consensual. The jury of eight men and three women rejected Jamie Leigh Jones' claims a day after starting deliberations in a Houston federal courthouse. Jones, 26, said she was raped in 2005...

• http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/233246-woman-loses-rape-case-against-former-employer

An appeals court sided with Jones on that issue, but jurors ruled Friday that Jones and [the firefighter] had engaged in consensual sex.

• http://www.news24.com/World/News/US-woman-loses-Iraq-rape-case-20110709

Jurors rejected claims that Jones was raped and also her fraud claim against KBR. They agreed with the [defendant], who said the sex was consensual.

• http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/07/08/Jury-rejects-womans-KBR-rape-claims/UPI-89271310166004/?spt=hs&or=tn

[He] admitted to having sex with Jones but said their acts were consensual, and the jury agreed, the newspaper said.

---

So User:Roscelese, are 12 citations enough to get you to take back your assertion: "But the sources don't say that." -- or do I need to post more?

I'd love for you to join me in protecting the BLP interests of BOTH Jones and the firefighter. Are you up for that? Hoping To Help (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Citations to support the PHRASE: “the jury found that Jones was not raped”

• http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303365804576434301221391760.html

A jury in federal court on Friday dispatched a high-profile lawsuit against KBR Inc. brought by a former employee, finding she wasn't sexually assaulted by a co-worker while working for the defense contractor in Iraq in 2005.

A day after closing arguments in the four-week trial, the jury of eight men and three women found Ms. Jones wasn't raped, and that KBR had not committed fraud in its employment contract. "We have known the truth for a long time now, and we are very relieved and gratified to get these facts out to ...

• http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/kbr-could-win-jamie-leigh-jones-rape-trial

After a day and a half of deliberations, a federal jury in Houston answered "no" to the question of whether Jones was raped by former firefighter while working in Iraq in 2005. It also found that KBR did not engage in fraud in inducing Jones to sign her employment contract to go overseas.

• http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/125249604.html

Jones got her day in court, and on Friday, a federal jury deciding her civil suit in Houston decided she was not raped, vindicating a company that charged she had exaggerated or made up her story, in part for fame, publicity and a book deal.

• http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43689959/ns/local_news-houston_tx/t/jurors-side-kbr-rape-trial/

Jurors said that no rape was committed and that KBR did not commit fraud.

KBR and Halliburton suggested that Jones fabricated the story because she was embarrassed about sleeping with Boartz.

Jones later made conflicting statements about what happened that night. Her attorney blames that on after-effects of being drugged.

The defense contended Jones has a long history of depression and anxiety and that she suffers from narcissistic personality disorder often evidenced by fabricated or distorted statements.

• http://www.khou.com/news/Jury-No-rape-no-fraud-in-KBR-case-125236159.html

A federal jury on Friday ruled that a woman who sued KBR over an alleged sexual assault in Iraq was not raped, and the company did not commit fraud. … Attorneys for Bortz and the company claimed that Jones made up the story about being drugged and raped out of fear of gossip among co-workers at the camp.

"I know it might make a better manuscript ... to tell the story that Jamie was gang-raped and locked in a shipping container, but I am asking you to reject that fiction," defense attorney Joanne Vorpahl told jurors.

Bortz’s attorney, Andrew T. McKinney, added: "The beauty of having no memory is that you don’t have to explain what you did and why you did it."

• http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/236732-woman-loses-rape-case-against-former-employer

A federal jury in Houston has ruled Jamie Leigh Jones, whose case became a call-to-action for reform in arbitration clauses in contracts, was not raped.

• http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2011/07/jamie_leigh_jones_verdict.php

The jury found she was not raped, and KBR did not commit fraud.

Hoping To Help (talk) 05:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

A "finding" is a legal finding, as in their ruling on what is actually in dispute in the case. As in "the jury finds in favor of one party or another". Consensual sex isn't a finding of the case. The findings of the case was that there was not sufficient evidence to prove to the extent required in a civil suit the claims made by the plaintiff. Saying the jury found not enough evidence to show rape or breach of contact is what appears in the articles. There was no "finding" on consensual sex. 174.134.132.118 (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Changes are awful

Without any discussion except a flood of citations, Hoping has changed the lead, added an outrageous number of cites for assertions, as well adding lengthy quotes in those cites. The whole thing is a WP:UNDUE mess.

In my view, the whole thing should be reverted. At the moment, it's using the outcome of the civil trial to slam Jones. It's probably distorting the facts, although who the hell is going to read all those cites and sort out what the context of each quotation is?

Even assuming we want to change the wording of the lead or the body, this is NOT the way to do it. If nothing else, the cites are incredibly cumulative and duplicative. I glanced at some of the wording, and it looks virtually identical (circular cites repeating each other).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This is obviously citation overkill. Also I don't know why the section about Jones founding the Jamie Leigh Foundation was removed from the lead. Kaldari (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, it is redundant to say that a jury "unanimously decides" something. All jury decisions are unanimous. Kaldari (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the excessive quotes and citations in the lead a bit. It is still excessive in my opinion as one sentence has 9 citations. Perhaps someone else can consolidate them further. Kaldari (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping. The lead is still POV, one-sided, and inaccurate. For example, it says: "At trial the defense presented evidence that she fabricated her story". The first cited source for that phrase talks about opening statements, not about any presentation of evidence. The second cited source says little about "evidence". The last (Mother Jones) is the best of the three, but that's not saying much, because, for example, it says, "evidence introduced in the trial raises the question of whether Jones has exaggerated and embellished key aspects of her story", which hardly justifies use of the word "fabricated".

Then, we have two phrases, one saying that the sex was consensual and other saying that she wasn't raped. Given that consent is a defense to rape, why are both necessary?

As an aside to Kaldari, not all jury verdicts are required to be unanimous. Depends on the jurisdiction.

Another aside. I think the foundation sentence was removed because people want to move the article to one about the case and the surrounding issues rather than one about her.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine with me, but until the title of the article is changed, it is still an article about Jamie Leigh Jones, not about the trial. Kaldari (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the lead further, per your comments. I believe it is totally NPOV at this point as it only presents the bare facts of the decision without any extraneous conclusions or implications. Kaldari (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "unanimous", it looks like you are correct. I didn't realize there are jurisdictions that allow non-unanimous jury decisions. I looked back through all of the sources, however, and couldn't find a source for the "unanimous" claim. If someone can find a source for it, feel free to add it back. Kaldari (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do we need both the consensual and the rape phrases in the lead?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Consensual and No Rape

Above Bbb23 says: Then, we have two phrases, one saying that the sex was consensual and other saying that she wasn't raped. Given that consent is a defense to rape, why are both necessary?

Hmm … have you considered the possibility that what you believe isn’t true?

Consent and Non-Rape aren’t actually as cleanly linked as you my think.

In the vast majority of jurisdictions sex can be non-consensual and the situation doesn’t (necessarily) rise to level of legally being rape.

In other situations (given a different set of facts) the sex can be, in fact, 100% consensual, enjoyed by everyone, before, during, and after -- and yet legally its still rape … and someone can end up convicted and in jail.

Yes, in certain situations consent is a defense to rape … But in other situations, in fact, non-consent isn’t even an element of that particular statute. Being able to prove consent won’t always keep someone from being found guilty of rape.

Real life can be very complex -- especially when humans, sex, emotions, and the law intersect. Hoping To Help (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please give me an example of an American jurisdiction (the issue was whether criminal charges would be brought in the U.S.) where consensual sexual relations between two adults is considered rape.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I could give many … but lets start with a small, trivial one like … Oh, I dunno … How about California? :-)

As an example, take this set of facts:

• Two men: Tom & Harry. Both are adults, both happily married to each other.
• Tom loves to be woken up with sex.
• Tom consents, actually begs, Harry to wake him up with sex.
• Tom begs Harry to do this, repeatedly.
• Finally, Harry gives in, and tells Tom the night before that he will do this in the morning.
• Harry double checks with Tom to make sure that he still wants it and that this will be a good time to fulfill his fantasy.
• Tom enthusiastically says yes, and so Harry does as he requests.
• He loves it and requests that Harry do this as often as possible.
• They continue to do this once a month for a year.
• Tom loves it, he is happy, finally sexually satisfied, and eternally grateful!

In California this is legally rape. And he could be prosecuted for 12 separate counts of rape. [I admit prosecution isn’t likely under these exact sets of facts. But that doesn’t change the fact that it is still unambiguously rape under the law.]

In California it is always (legally) rape to have consensual sex with someone while they are asleep. For whether it is consensual or not is (legally) completely irrelevant. Non-consent is not an element of the crime. Also, the fact that he is completely happy about everything that took place and doesn’t want his husband prosecuted is also not legally relevant.

Additionally, imagine that a husband’s fantasy is to be woken up with sex while overlooking the Pacific Ocean, but the couple lives in Nevada. So his husband takes him on vacation to a cabana in California (that overlooks the ocean) where he (consensually) fulfills his husband's fantasy.

He would then be guilty of both rape under California law -- and in violation of the White Slave Traffic Act under federal law and could be prosecuted and sent to both state and federal prison in succession. And, of course, the federal government could prosecute him under the White Slave Traffic Act even if the State of California decided to take no action. Hoping To Help (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully, you're not a lawyer. The scenario you so lovingly describe is not criminal in California or under federal law. California Penal Code section 261(a) applies only to non-spouses. The White Slave Traffic Act (codified beginning at 18 U.S.C. section 2421) is more complex, but it must at a minimum include some interstate activity.

In all fairness, though, if you changed your scenario to an unmarried couple, the California statute would criminalize the active partner's activity. The fact that the sleeping partner had consented while conscious would not be sufficient. See People v. Dancy, 102 Cal. App. 4th 21 (2002). No one would ever prosecute the active partner without some additional unfavorable facts, but technically, he would be guilty. Even though you were wrong, I appreciated your allusion to it. I was unaware of the statute, and Dancy is an interesting case.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

My, my, my … The pattern continues. :-) This is at least the fifth time in the past week or so where you’ve made a bold, overly confident pronouncement -- that is completely (and provably) wrong. Usually you do this while giving no links whatsoever to support your position. This time you add a gratuitous insult to boot where you say: Hopefully, you're not a lawyer.

So once again I must go point by point to help you see the error of your ways :-) … Here goes …

California Spousal Rape Law (section 262)

• Bbb23says: . The scenario you so lovingly describe is not criminal in California or under federal law. California Penal Code section 261(a) applies only to non-spouses.

Yes, section 261, commonly referred to as the Non-Spousal Rape law -- obviously doesn't apply to a married couple. But the very next statute in the Califonia Penal Code, section 262 is referred to as the Spousal Rape law and criminalizes the same acts that are criminalized under the Non-Spousal Rape statute. Specifically it says that sex with a spouse while they are “unconscious or asleep” is rape. And once again, it is legally rape even if it is completely consensual since non-consent is not an element of the crime.

You can catch up on some of the advances that have occurred in spousal rape laws in the U.S. during the past 20-years by going here and here. And you can read the California statute itself by going here. But again, of course, you want to read section 262 which criminalizes rape between spouses -- not the section you referenced (261) which is completely irrelevant to the situation I described.

I do agree with you on one point. Any person that references section 261 (commonly referred to as the Non-Spousal Rape Law) when spousal rape is being discussed -- shouldn't be a lawyer. Such a person should probably also refrain from making bold pronouncements about the law in public forums.  ;-)

Now lets look at the next issue where you boldly declare that I’m wrong …

White Slave Traffic Act

• Bbb23says: The scenario you so lovingly describe is not criminal in California or under federal law. ... The White Slave Traffic Act (codified beginning at 18 U.S.C. section 2421) is more complex, but it must at a minimum include some interstate activity.]

This is an improvement in that this time you are citing the relevant law. But you either didn’t fully read my comment or you’re not understanding the statute.

In my second example, where I reference the White Slave Traffic Act, I clearly describe interstate activity. I describe the couple as living in Nevada and traveling to California with the intent of engaging in the (illegal) sexual act.

The law originally "criminalized all premarital or extramarital sexual relationships that involved interstate travel. " But it has been amended to criminalize "any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense" that involves interstate travel.

BONUS EXAMPLE: If an adult married woman travels from New Jersey to New York with her non-spousal (adult) lover, to have consensual (and fully conscious/awake/sober) sex in a hotel -- she is in violation of NY State law and may be in violation of the White Slave Traffic Act and so could be subject to up to 20-years in prison on the federal charges alone. (And yes, I know that she is unlikely to be prosecuted unless the prosecutor has additional motivations -- but that is a separate issue from what we're discussing: whether consensual sexual activity between two adults is sometimes illegal under state or federal law.)

You can read about the history of the act here, here, and here. And you can read the statute itself here

And since you enjoyed reading about the Dancy case (which I have previously read), I think you'll find this article, Court hears kinky argument interesting as well. This case, arguably, has no other unfavorable acts and so is a more straight forward example.

Hoping To Help (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the California rape statutes. At the same time, I think it's irrelevant to this article, as is the White Slave Traffic Act (I missed the part about traveling - my eyes tend to glaze over when I read your posts).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, none of this nonsense changes my view that both phrases do not need to be in the article except for your wish to engage in overkill. That wish expresses itself in your use of too many citations as well as your overly long posts here on the Talk page. It's the let's flood them with information and hope that some of it sticks approach. It's not an unsound negotiating strategy as, unfortunately, it often works.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

In general, citation overkill occurs when an editor's desire to make a point overrides his interest in producing an informative, readable article. We need to walk it back and think about the article from the perspective of the reader. MastCell ^Talk 19:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

And what are your thoughts about the lead, specifically whether we need both phrases (consensual and rape), as well as anything else you wish to comment on?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little hesitant to get overly involved here, partly because I lack familiarity with this particular case and related sources, and partly because I'm not sure I have the patience at present to deal effectively with what I think is partisan and agenda-driven editing. I'm sorry - I know that's a horrible cop-out. I guess I think it should be sufficient to clearly describe the jury's findings - for example, by saying that they believed that the sex was consensual and thus that no rape had occurred. That only takes one clearly written sentence. MastCell ^Talk 21:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand. In any event, in the absence of anyone else commenting (besides Hoping and me), I've reworded the lead. Hoping gets what he wants (both consensual and rape), but I reduced rape to a parenthetical. I combined the sex and fraud into one sentence and removed the quote about the fraud because it doesn't need to be in the lead (and it's in the cite anyway, I believe, because Hoping added quotes to almost all, if not all, the cites). I also worded it more accurately from a legal standpoint. Juries don't rule, they return verdicts. Anyway, I'm not thrilled with it, which may mean it will be acceptable to Hoping.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible copyvio

These edits appear to introduce material copy-pasted from the cited source, without being quoted. I have now enclosed the problematic material in quotes to reduce the possibility of a copyright violation, but there may be more problematic material from the same or another source.

Note: The material was added on the same date as the source material was published. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

After another edit rightfully attributed the quote to the newspaper, I decided the whole thing was too clunky, so I've reworded it (1) to be more faithful to the source (which is actually derivative anyway), (2) to remove POV words like "revelations", and (3) to hopefully eliminate the copyright issue. I think it's okay now.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good. I've removed the template. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Roscelene reverting items without explanation or discussion

Roscelene here you've once again dismissively, and condescendingly reverted multiple additions to the article without explaining or discussing the reverts.

• From this sentence: The prosecution also brought out that on two prior occasions Jones had reported being raped and that she had taken medication for anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder. You removed the dubious tag without comment or explanation. Why???? That part of the sentence is clearly a mistake. This is a civil trial and so there is no "prosecution" -- and the side that brought this out was clearly the defense. Could you please explain yourself?

• And you completely deleted this sentence without any explination: The defense attacked Jones's credibility because she had signed a movie deal to promote the story of her lawsuit.[[7]] Why??

• You also deleted several very short quotes (that were fully cited) with the insulting comment: "how hard is it to paraphrase or at least attribute?" Since it is so easy why didn't you work cooperatively with the other editors and paraphrase or attribute the quotes instead of just deleting them?

• You also completely deleted all references to KBR filing a motion to be reimbursed by Jones for fees and costs for the civil suit she lost -- even though it was supported with a citation from The Wall Street Journal. [8] How can you support deleting all reference to this clearly relevant and Reliably Sourced piece of information? Please explain.

Please, I would like to work with you in a cooperative manner to improve the article -- but it would involve you stopping the insults and being willing to work cooperatively. Hoping To Help (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Some of that was accidental (I was working from an old version of the page and didn't catch all the changes), but some of what you're saying I did is just wrong. Try looking at the edits before you start waving your hands around and shouting about how someone isn't editing according to your liking. (The removal of the film deal bit was accidental, but fortuitous, since it is not supported by the cited source and, per BLP, needs to go immediately.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth are you falsely accusing me of fabricating a source? Here's the language from the source: One thing Jones has working in her favor is that her story seems so incredible, her pursuit of justice so sincere, that it's almost unimaginable that she would make it up. After all, why would anyone put themselves through that kind of torture? But KBR and Bortz also have a ready answer to that question. It's The Jamie Leigh Story: How my Rape in Iraq and Cover-up Made Me a Crusader for Justice, the working title of her book.

For years, Jones has been in discussions with book agents, screenwriters, and production companies. In 2008, Paul Pompian, a film producer with dozens of docudrama credits to his name, bought the rights to her story. He says that his company is working on film version of Jones' story and that a book is also in the works. "Frankly, we're waiting for the outcome of the trial," he told me. "We're hoping for a verdict that will give us a third act. Hopefully it will be an outcome that's good for us and the movie and especially for Jamie Leigh." Both the screenwriter and Jones' coauthor were expected to be in Houston watching part of the trial, according to Pompian.

When KBR's lawyers first learned of the book deal, they went to court seeking access to the manuscript and other documents. Jones fought the disclosure, arguing that it would diminish the work's financial value. Jones' lawyers filed a motion with the court declaring that the manuscript was a work of fiction. THF (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

And does this support the claim that KBR's lawyers used the film deal to discredit Jones at the trial? No, it most certainly does not. They asked for the book manuscript and other documents and apparently did not get them. There is no evidence that this arose at the main trial. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Is your reading comprehension really that poor? It's an article about the evidence KBR used to win at trial. I'm dumbfounded. It's a BLP violation not to include it, because the omission incorrectly makes Jones's false allegations against a living person look more credible. I hope a third party weighs in against the POV-pushing that's going on here. THF (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure BLPN would find your claim that our failure to insert unsourced information about Jones is a BLP violation for another unnamed person very convincing. Unfortunately for you, neither of the new sources say that this came up at the trial; according to Legal Newsline, it's part of the motion for fees, and I've moved/rephrased it appropriately. KHOU just plain doesn't mention it - a possibly-metaphorical reference to a "manuscript" won't cut it, without any context to show that the lawyer was talking about a book. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I have the strength to deal with this aggressive, inflammatory editing again. I've removed the material from the lead about motion for fees and the newly added sentence about vindication. I've removed the second sentence about what the motion says in the body as too much information for a motion like this. We don't need to express KBR's position. And god help me, those extended quotes in the cites.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In line with my comment about "strength", I've opened up a section on this article at WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Public documents used as citations for assertions about living people

I had this policy recently pointed out to me by an editor that reverted all of my edits that I had supported with primary sources.

WP:BLP#Misuse_of_primary_sources states:

“ Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

”

But there are currently other editors' (existing) edits that are solely sourced with primary documents -- so it would be useful to come to a meeting on the minds as to when these types of documents can be used.

Questions:

• In the second paragraph of the policy, does the phrase "subject to the restrictions of this policy" -- mean the WP:BLP#Misuse_of_primary_sources policy or the WP: Primary policy
• Does "primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source" -- mean the document itself was discussed or mentioned, or that something it contains was mentioned -- even though the secondary source might be using a *different* primary source?
• And, if part of the document can be used, how do we determine how much of it? If some of the judges reasoning from his ruling is referenced in a secondary source does that open it up to use the entire document?

I would like us to determine which of these primary sources we are able to use:

Please weigh in. And show your work :-) i.e. explain your reasoning! Thanks :-) Hoping To Help (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems like the material currently cited to those either is already supported by other (secondary) sources, or could be - the first citation to the Jones et al. v. Halliburton et al. is also supported by an MSNBC article, and the second is just saying that she sued, which should be easy to support with something else. Although one could also argue that "Jones sued," cited to a document from the lawsuit, is a "straightforward, descriptive statement[...] that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify [is] supported by the source." As for the other things, we should be able to find secondary sources that support the material (for example! this source confirms the material that was just removed about the EEOC thing) - if nothing else, there's an UNDUE issue if we include material that secondary sources haven't picked up. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Move article to new title

[Copied by User:Hoping to help from WP:BLPN:]

There seens to be broad consensus to re-name the article so that it's about the case(s) rather than one of the parties. Usual practice is to simply use a title like the court(s) gave, such as "Jones v. Halliburton and KBR". What we can't do is include something like "the gang rape case" in the title. Even if we inserted "alleged" that would still be problematic for rwo reasons: (1) the courts have rejected the allegation, and (2) per WP:Title, "Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation implies wrongdoing, and so should be avoided in a descriptive title. (Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are accurately described as "allegations".)"Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is to give the article a name that broadly refers to the sum of the ongoing disputes (between Jones and KBR/Haliburton), both in and out of court. Those disputes have been fought in and around:

• The media (newspapers, magazines, 20/20 etc.)
• Congress (testimony and eventual passage of legislation related to binding arbitration requirements in employment contracts)
• Criminal Grand Jury
• Appeals Court over whether Jones could sue in civil court instead of binding arbitration.
• Civil Lawsuit
• Motion for fees

So I would suggest something like:

• Jamie Leigh Jones versus KBR, or
• Jamie Leigh Jones and KBR, or
• Jamie Leigh Jones versus KBR: related disputes, or
• Jamie Leigh Jones and KBR: related disputes, or
• Disputes between Jamie Leigh Jones and KBR

And I'm also fine with the suggestions made above of something like:

• Jones v. Haliburton and related proceedings, or
• Jones v. KBR and related proceedings

But I have some concern about the word "proceedings" in that I've seen a lot of wikilawering go on over the article -- and I don't want to generate discussions of what does or does not qualify as a "proceeding". So maybe:

• Jones v. Haliburton and related disputes, or
• Jones versus KBR and related disputes

Hoping To Help (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

And I could accept [[User:Anythingyouwant] suggestion of Jones v. Halliburton and KBR.

What do others think?

Hoping To Help (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Jones has testified in front of Congress and been the subject of a documentary. Her book and movie deal may fall through with her court loss, and she may disappear from the spotlight, but she's a public figure. THF (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

article is inaccurate and biased. Jones did have extensive injuries and the defense party's violent history not mentioned

Here are the reasons for the changes I tried to make in the article. First, the list of defendants as listed is an incomplete list. I included the defendants that were involved in the final court case, as are mentioned in the articles. All defendants should be listed or the wording should be changed. If a partial listing is stated, I think the defendants I included are the relevant parties. It is very misleading to say one of the employees were charged since several were.

As far as the first doctor finding that there was no damage to her chest, it was stated that Jones did not complain about chest pain and specifically that implant damage wasn't noticed, but not that there was a chest examination and no injury was found. Later doctors visits did discover chest damage. The doctor didn't find damage, but appears to not have looked (whether or not she looked for chest injury isn't actually stated). Searching for an injury and coming to the positive conclusion that there isn't one is different than stating that an injury wasn't a conclusion made. Perhaps a more thorough explanation of her injuries should be included (like the frissuring and bruising in apparently the vagina and anus, the fact that it was a pectoral capsule torn, not a torn muscle, and that there were some bruises found on her) but also may become too explicit. But there was no finding that she had "no injury to her chest" in the citations.

If one of the findings was consensual sex, it is not listed in the articles. What is stated is that two of the original claims were not upheld, which made the other claims moot. That is very clear. These can also be looked up in the original complaint filed to start the civil lawsuit. That was the legal conclusion made, determined by the jury. If consensual sex was part of the final findings of the jury, that isn't supported by the articles (other sources would be needed to confirm such a statement, as its mentions in the articles are in my opinion far too vague to be listed as one of the jury's findings).

Also, I made additions that I thought were relevant. The defendant's criminal record seems to be specifically what was referred to in the next paragraph, as "his" life not being on display. If the jury had known of his criminal record, the jury it's possible that they would have ruled the other way and I think it's important to mention that in the section about the civil case. If that quote is included, I think his criminal background of violence against women should be included as well. Otherwise, quotes from the two sides, in my opinion should be removed. 174.134.132.118 (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here. I can't get to it right now, but I will try later to look at your changes more closely and then respond.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

And nothing happened. It is strange how all the talk is about quotes, especially journalistic interpretations, but as user noted above there are inconsistencies. I for one after seeing the part in the movie hot coffee the first thing that struck me was the missing rape kit. Reading the article to clarify that confused me more. Why was that overlooked so easily, missing footage and notes did not strike anyone to put more emphasis on the truthfulness, or lack thereof, of the later testifying doctor? The article just left the impression that all that has been written was a regurgitation of the media, a media that in these days is so easily bought of and in this case could have rewritten a verdict. If the trial failed for the victim it was more because of lack of evidence, easily misinterpreted, and the accusations transformed into fabrication. I'm from EU and it just amazes me that the whole point of the this case started because of private entities trying to limit the right to a justice system of everyone who accepts that arbitration clause. In the end, this article was more a puff piece not actually hitting the point of entrapment in arbitration of an employee by a private company, which engaging in this practice along with the mishandling of evidence paints a clear picture of the situation, unlike those many quotes listed above. I say that whoever reads the article, is or not native English speaker, but not the talks will be left with the impression that she's a liar, the justice system works and more importantly that waiving one's (US citizen) right to the justice system is alright and fair. Em27 (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The War of Rape - Washington Monthly Nov/Dec 2013

Mencimer, Stephanie (Nov/Dec 2013). "The War of Rape". Washington Monthly. Retrieved 27 October 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep due to this new information this page needs an update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.168.70 (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Major issue with one key statement in article

The phrase "On July 8, the jury returned a verdict that rejected all of Jones's claims, finding that the sex between Jones and the employee was consensual[5][7] and therefore no rape had occurred,[8][9][10] and that KBR did not defraud her.[6][7][8]" is problematic. The problem with the current phrasing is that it seems to state that the jury findings can be considered the actually facts of what really happened. The problem is that I don't believe the jury was ever in a position to determine what really did happen (i.e. was the sex truly consensual or was it rape?) from a factual standpoint (i.e. meeting a scientific definition of a fact). The jury can only look at the evidence presented before them and draw conclusions based on that. Any missing evidence or faulty evidence could sway the jury to find that something did or didn't occur when in reality that opposite is true from a objective fact standpoint. It is a known fact that juries have at time ruled something to not have occurred or to have occurred that evidence discovered after the trial proved otherwise. This jury didn't have a gods eye view of the sexual encounter to determine if it was rape nor was their any video of the incident. It is altogether possible she was indeed raped but because of a lack of evidence she was unable to prove it to the jury. Thus we shouldn't be stating that "no rape occurred" since that is not a fact that was proven to the best of my knowledge and thus we don't know if any rape occurred. We need to make it clearer that this was the conclusion of the jury, not an objective fact. Wikipedia is not in a position to say whether she was or wasn't raped, only to report what the jury concluded. The jury's conclusion might very well be correct but based on the evidence presented at the trial I don't believe that their conclusion meets the scientific definition of a fact therefore we should not imply it is. It needs to be made clearer that the part that says "and therefore no rape had occurred," refers to the jury's conclusions not objective fact. --2601:644:400:8D:9D61:FD7E:E3E3:1077 (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you're misreading what is meant by the sentence, but it's true that potential ambiguity could be avoided by the addition of a word: "that the sex between Jones and the employee was consensual, and that therefore no rape had occurred". Would this address your concern? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I was simply stating how that sentence might be interpreted by some readers, regardless of whether that interpretation was intended or not by the writer, so yes, the addition of "that" would help clarify things. I will be bold and make the change myself. --2601:644:400:8D:7CEE:9C4E:A00E:33BC (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Roscelese: The sentence currently says: "The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, finding that the sex between Jones and the employee...". Any idea why "defendants" is plural and "employee" singular? It seems like something is missing. Kaldari (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The suit had a bunch of parties, including KBR - it wasn't a criminal trial of the employee. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

== EEOC Portion is NOT Accurate. This is the official Court Document == and also secondary sources to confirm

EEOC letter

This needs to be corrected. This is the EEOC COURT DOCUMENT- WSJ was inaccurate please see actual court document.

The EEOC's investigation credit Charging Party’s testimony that she was indeed sexually assaulted by one or more of Respondent employees and physical trauma was apparent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Jamie Leigh Jones Has PTSD- Victor Scorano was NOT Jamie's Therapist.

Jones said the attack was so brutal that she required two reconstructive surgeries to her chest and more than 200 visits to psychiatrists to treat post traumatic stress disorder.

Jamie Leigh Jones Loses Case against former Halliburton Subsidiary KBR --Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Victor Scorano was not Jamie's therapist and was only a witness at trial. She has the diagnosis of PTSD from 9 therapists. Being that he was never her tharipst or doctor this is highly biased. She went to the doctor for PTSD more than 200 times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC) --Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC) --Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

EEOC Determination was in Jamie Leigh Jones Favor see below

--Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The EEOC’s Letter of Determination credited the allegation of sexual assault.) --Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

A 2006 investigation from the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found that The investigation credit Charging Party’s testimony that she was indeed sexually assaulted by one or more of Respondent employees and physical trauma was apparent. --Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

This pre-dates the jury trial. Am I misunderstanding you? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It predates the jury trial by five years. As such, to emphasize it is misleading to the reader and non-neutral, particularly if Truth is in fact Jones or affiliated with Jones.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect. This is a third party unbiased EEOC determination letter. This is a document that will not be changed even post trial. This is a fact in evidence. Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The EEOC is a governing agency and did find that KBR was in violation. It is evidence and facts in the case. It never changes as it is their determination. Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Last substantive edit - EEOC and Poe

I'd like to know what folks think of the latest edit by Truthwillsetyoufree123. I could revert it myself, but having filed a report at AN3, I'd rather seek input from experienced editors, i.e., C.Fred and Roscelese, who were reverting Truth's edits before I did anything. As I understand it, the bases for reverting Truth have been primary sources and undue. In the latest edit Truth did both. They used the primary sources (one ref for the EEOC determination (without a link) and one ref to a court ruling - and one source that is unreliable because it is partisan and topic-restricted), and extended the Poe material again.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, the partisan source predates the jury trial. What Truth is attempting to do is to slant the article in Jones's favor: the jury got it wrong and everyone who said "good" things about Jones got it right.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

These are all facts. Jones changed the law despite the jury verdict. Jones did advocate for women and changed two laws. You cannot make a wikipedia on a Jamie Jones and not include the EEOC determination which was not biased. It was a third party determination. Your agenda is to only post bad and biased items on Jones including slander which was posted by whoever on here advocates for KBR.

The jury trial was highly biased by the "independent expert". The "expert" that was hired by the judge was affiliated with Halliburton, KBR and Halliburtons attorneys for years. Please see all the articles below. Victor Scarano was an affiliate of Halliburton/ KBR/ and KBR's representation "Vinson and Elkins". He is NOT jamie's psychologist and his diagnosis in favor of his collegues needs to remain out of this wikipedia. Jamie Leigh Jones was diagnosed with PTSD by nine psychologists and went to therapy over 200 times for PTSD and never once was diagnosed with the items that Victor Scarano diagnosed her with. His bias is proven below: 

Vinson and Elkins represented KBR at trial and Victor Scarano  has been working with them on various projects since 2005! 

He was also adjunct faculty with the University of Houston Law Center with an attorney on Vinson and Elkins firm.

He was also alumni with Halliburton attorneys

Victor Scarano's lawfirm "Hasley Scarano LLP" is on the "Houston Volunteer Lawyers with "Halliburton Energy"

There are countless articles with Hasley Scarano LLP and Halliburton on the Houston Bar Association Bulletins

He practices grievance defense

Marvin W. Jones, BODA - TEXAS' Board of Disciplinary Appeals ...

Vinson and Elkins and Hasley Sarano were within this bulletin as well

It is the duty of wikipedia to be unbiased. Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You must represent the fact that Jamie Leigh Jones did change the laws and had an EEOC determination in her favor. You can't only include items in favor of KBR/Halliburton just because you don't like Jamie Leigh Jones. It is highly unfair to slant the article in KBR's favor if this is an article to fully represent Jamie Leigh Jones as well. You have to include the good as well to be unbiased.. Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

References

It's not clear that the Poe/Slaughter amendment was approved. Do you have some kind of news source noting that it became law? Also, as I mentioned on my talk page, I see what you're saying about the EEOC finding not, as our article seems to claim, validating the "not locked in a trailer" thing, but both the source and the EEOC letter mention the "secure location" thing. The EEOC letter "credits Charging Party's testimony that she was indeed sexually assaulted" and "claim of sexual harassment", which does sound like something it would make sense to include, but do we have a non-primary source for this? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your agreement to include the EEOC judgement- to not be biased. It absolutely makes sense to include that it credits the "charging party's testimony that she was indeed sexually assaulted". The following are sources to support the EEOC letter. Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Please remove the Victor Scarano diagnosis, as he was an "expert witness" that was biased towards KBR/ Haliburton per the articles above. He was never Jamie Leigh Jones therapist or psychiatrist. Jamie Leigh Jones has PTSD only.

Also, The Jamie Leigh Jones amendment passed but I see that you do not add the title of the amendment as "Jamie Leigh Jones" amendment as it states. This again is not in Jamie Leigh Jones' favor. It should name the actual ammendment. Proof Franken's amendment was titled "The Jamie Leigh Jones" amendment Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The Poe/Slaughter amendment was passed. Please see the following: Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to number these in the hope that we can have a clearer conversation...

1. I appreciate what you're doing, and it does seem like our article is omitting useful information, but you still need to familiarize yourself with our reliable sourcing policy. In particular, you're giving us a lot of primary sources, which at best are useful for telling us (for example) exactly what the EEOC said, but not necessarily context/weight, and in worse cases unverified opinion. Can you sort through your own sources once you've read up on policy to indicate which ones are useful?

2. The source says that Scarano was independently appointed by the court, not a KBR expert witness. Do you have a source that contradicts this?

3. The Poe/Slaughter amendment may have passed the House, but did it pass the Senate and become law? For that matter, did the Franken amendment become law? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Please Delete Page unless you can add in unbiased and non libel information that was sent in on the talk page

Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Please delete page unless you will add in the unbiased information as added on the talk page. Also, the portion on Victor Scarano is not something that can be used on this wikipedia. Please see evidence on talk page. Furthermore, the EEOC did not say what the page says that it determined. The determination letter was also posted.

Please revert changes to reflect accuracy as represented by myself or delete immediately. --Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Done You may follow the discussion here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 July 2017

Please delete the Jamie Leigh Jones page or review the talk section and revert to thetruthwillsetyoufree123 version which is supported by facts submitted on the "talk" page. This page is not accurate and is highly unbiased for a living person. Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The article is a biography of a living person, and the material is potentially harmful The neutrality of the material is in question The copyright status of the material is in question One or more external links are in question

Inappropriate items includedTruthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Since Bob123 has decided to only include biased information on a living person and does not include anything about Jamie Leigh Jones life to it's entirety and fails to represent facts from the sources provided and this is a living person please delete page immediately. Please see the talk page to see all the facts debunked from various articles. Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jamie Leigh Jones. 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/20101213195741/http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/22221847 to http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/22221847/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)