Jump to content

Talk:Jamie Leigh Jones/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

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)

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' 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

rape kit

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)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jamie_Leigh_Jones/Archive_1&oldid=1265021702"