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)

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)