Jump to content

Talk:Jamie Leigh Jones/Archive 2

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

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. "[[1]]
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)

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)

20/20 news report

  • ABC news shows the entire 20/20 report from 12/14/2007 at [2] 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)

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)

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)
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
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)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jamie_Leigh_Jones/Archive_2&oldid=1265021709"