Talk:Jamie Leigh Jones

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

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

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

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

Jamie Leigh Jones is not a member of armed forces and has never been. She is married to an active duty sailor.

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

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

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

Thoughts? - Sean Martin (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's essentially accurate as stated, it sounds odd because it is an odd situation. Trying to clarify that the reason the Iraq legal system doesn't apply is that there is an Iraq law saying that their legal system doesn't apply may just make it more confusing, but I'd be open to suggestions.  How the legal systems apply isn't unclear though, it's clear that neither apply.199.159.126.137 (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree it's a confusing/unusual situation, but think it should be accurately described. And if there is a law that says the legal system doesn't apply then, in a rather convoluted way, the system clearly does apply.  There is a law that is being used, even if it is being used to say the law doesn't apply. - Sean Martin (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It might help if we actually put a link to CPA Order 17 in there somewhere.Kmusser (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea. Takes you right to a link that helps clarify the application of the law.  Done! - Sean Martin (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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)