Talk:Jamie Leigh Jones

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deletion 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Until someone has been found guilty or not guilty, the actions are alleged. Kingturtle (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Biographies of living persons

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Merge [[Charles Boartz]] into this article 

message: 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)
replies: text: I fixed it. Kingturtle (talk) 06:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: fix

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  fix 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  note 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Just searched for it  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)
thread_title:  Franken Amendment 

message: The Washington Post says she claimed to be put in a trailer.  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)
thread_title: Shipping crate/trailer

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Compelling arbitration 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Exactly. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  rape kit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Move 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Citations for: “the jury found the sex was consensual” 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Citations to support the PHRASE: “the jury found that Jones was not raped” 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks, looks good. I've removed the template. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyvio 

message: 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:
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Public documents used as citations for assertions about living people 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  article is inaccurate and biased.  Jones did have extensive injuries and the defense party's violent history not mentioned 

message: – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The War of Rape - Washington Monthly Nov/Dec 2013 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Major issue with one key statement in article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jamie Leigh Jones Has PTSD- Victor Scorano was NOT Jamie's Therapist.  

message: Government Publishing Office--Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This pre-dates the jury trial. Am I misunderstanding you? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  EEOC Determination was in Jamie Leigh Jones Favor see below  

message: Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done You may follow the discussion here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Delete Page unless you can add in unbiased and non libel information that was sent in on the talk page  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 July 2017 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified