Talk:Rebekah Jones/Archive 1

Connected contributor
User:Georebekah's contributions suggest it is a Single-purpose account focused solely on Rebekah Jones. Moreover, this Wikipedia account name is identical to the Twitter account of Rebekah Jones, and this edit at User talk:Georebekah all but acknowledges that User:Georebekah is Rebekah Jones. NedFausa (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding the connected contributor note. However, I don't agree with the inclusion of the COI template -- User:Georebekah is not a 'major' contributor to the article; that user mainly added a photo, additional alma maters, and the phrase "whistle-blower" (which is a fine descriptor also used by most articles in major media). ␄ –Nucleosynth (t c) 23:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Georebekah is responsible for 25.45% of the total edits made to Rebekah Jones. That makes User:Georebekah a major contributor. NedFausa (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, but most of those edits were tiny, and if you look at them, many of them were formatting tweaks to the same actual content. The high percentage is due to the low number of total edits of the page itself.  Moreover, most of the actual content was contributed by  (40%),  (21%), and User:2601:4C1:4000:3A80:D055:280C:1BDA:B987 (18%) -- all numbers reported by Who Wrote That?.  I really don't think that this qualifies as "major" contributions by the subject in question. ␄ –Nucleosynth (t c) 23:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Georebekah is ranked #4 among Top 10 by added text, accounting for 10.2%—compared to your own 3.3%. You are not a major contributor. User:Georebekah is. NedFausa (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I don't understand how it's relevant whether or not I'm a major contributor -- I was editing the page at the same time and watched most of the diffs happen.
 * The xtools page also doesn't count which of the edits have already been reverted (some have), and which edits were self-overlapping (most were). It's not a reliable metric here.
 * I think it's more productive to look at the actual diffs in question (there's not that many). Looking at them, I don't see any edits which seem like a COI. ␄ –Nucleosynth (t c) 23:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * NedFausa Using percent as a number of edits is grossly misleading. I didn't know how to use the formatting for the photo I provided so I changed it like five times. Again, I only discovered this page TODAY.

I started this page and rereading it I see that it mostly follows what I orignally wrote, so I consider myself still the major contributor to the article. I hereby confirm that I still live in the same non-US country where I have been editing English Wikipedia since 2006. No relation to the subject, so removing the tl. Jane (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * COI refers to A major contributor to this article, not to THE major contributor. And this section of the talk page makes clear that the connected contributor in question is User:Georebekah, not you. NedFausa (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine, be stubborn about it and count the bits and bytes. As I previously stated as the page-creator, I do not see major changes, period. Jane (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * As a respected wikipedia editor, why did you create a reference that clearly did not list all of the presenters/ authors reported by Esri in the link within your reference?

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Rebekah Jones Photo.jpg

This is my photo. I took it, I own it. FSU has never used it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4C1:4000:3A80:25B3:1C8F:F537:D661 (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like the ever helpful User:NedFausa nominated it for deletion. I entered an undeletion request you can follow here (might take weeks for an answer): c:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests. Jane (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * While we await undeletion of the image about which Rebekah Jones tweeted: Dare I say... I kinda look hot on my Wikipedia page, why not insert a different image of our photogenic BLP subject? I don't understand the fixation on a single picture whose copyright is in question. The ever helpful NedFausa (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Failed verification (Hurricane Michael)
With this edit, removed the {Failed verification} template following a reference that ostensibly supports the claim that Rebekah Jones led the agency's geospatial response during Hurricane Michael. "I easily verified this reference," wrote Jane023 in her edit summary, "by looking it up on the link provided." For convenience, here is the link provided. When I clicked that link, I searched for and found a listing for Florida Department of Health's Hurricane Michael GIS Response by Parker Hinson and Rebekah Jones. However, unlike some of the other 395 user presentations, the listing for Hinson and Jones has no PDF attached for downloading their presentation. If it reports that Rebekah Jones led the agency's geospatial response during Hurricane Michael, one must be able to actually see the paper to verify her claim. A one-line tabular listing simply does not suffice. The {Failed verification} template must accordingly be restored until Jane023 can explain how to locate and access the missing PDF. NedFausa (talk) 06:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that she presented is enough to verify the sentence fragment which states she led the effort. Titles follow actions, not the other way around. Jane (talk) 06:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * She was not employed as FDOH's GIS manager during Hurricane Michael, and therefore could not have led the agency's response. She did not become GIS manager until over a year later. She is also not first author of the Hurricane Michael Response presentation. Furthermore, assisting in providing an overview of an agency's response in no way verifies you led said response, especially if not employed in the role which would have done so at that time. More evidence is needed to verify the claim. Norasnowx —Preceding undated comment added 09:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what her title was at the time she led a response to the Hurricane. The precise role she played is completely irrelevant to the simple fact she played a significant role in the tracking of the hurricane. Please stop your insistance on the definition of a hurricane response leader. Jane (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, the statement says she 'led the AGENCY'S response' to the hurricanes WHILE she was gis manager. LEADING an AGENCY'S response has a much different implication than PLAYING A ROLE (as you state) in an agency's response. The whole sentence regarding what she did as GIS manager needs to be re-written or the portion about Hurricane Michael and Hurricane Dorian removed until verification is provided. Also, there are numerous data scientists throughout the entire state of Florida who track hurricanes. Tracking hurricanes and/or presenting a storymap with which you are second author in no way is indicative of leading an entire agency's geospatial response, rather that you participated in that agency's response. Furthermore, both hurricanes occurred before she was GIS manager, so her participation in the agency's hurricane response should be mentioned in the sentence prior. Norasnowx
 * Please desist from edit warring at the Rebekah Jones Wikipedia page, as you did here, and explain how to locate and access the PDF absent from the Florida Department of Health's listing for Hurricane Michael GIS Response by Parker Hinson and Rebekah Jones—or provide an alternative WP:RS to support your claim that Rebekah Jones led the agency's geospatial response during Hurricane Michael. Your disruptive editing reflects poorly on WikiProject Women's History and whatever other projects you are associated with. NedFausa (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

On 7 July 2020, added a reference to the end of the lead's third sentence, which is what we are discussing in this talk page section. It cites a June 12, 2020 post by an author identified only as GISUSER—the name of the website. The post contains one paragraph relevant to our discussion. Ms. Jones has extensive experience building and deploying public facing web services, particularly within the state of Florida. From her bio… "I've led or been a part of response efforts to Hurricanes Isaac (2012), Sandy (2012), Hurricane Hermine (2016), Hurricane Matthew (2018), and Hurricane Dorian (2019)." She is perhaps best known recently for her role as Geospatial Systems and Science Manager at the Florida Department of Health where she built the COVID-19 Data and Surveillance Dashboard. There is no mention of Hurricane Michael. Indeed, of the five hurricanes named in that paragraph, only one appears in our lead—Dorian—where, like Michael, it is followed by a {failed verification} tag because we have no references to support our claim that "she led the agency's geospatial response."

GISUSER quotes Jones's bio as saying, "I've led or been a part of response efforts" to hurricanes including Dorian. GISUSER does not, however, indicate whether she led (played a major role) or was a part of (supportive role) the response to Hurricane Dorian. So while I appreciate 's contribution, it does not verify the disputed claim in our lead that Rebekah Jones led the agency's geospatial response during hurricanes Michael and Dorian. NedFausa (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Doctoral Course Work and Dissertation
On Rebekah Jones' personal website she states that she pursued a PhD at Florida State University from 2016 to 2018 and also that this is in progress. In a Florida Today article, authors Sassoon and Waymer write "A Florida State University spokesman confirmed Jones was a Geography PhD student from the fall semester of 2016 through the spring semester of 2018 but has not earned a degree.". - Markkitt (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The March 31, 2020 story published by Syracuse University states:

"Now closing in on a doctorate in geography from Florida State University, she’s carried that work and knowledge with her to inform her dissertation, a paleo-climatological project that explores ancient storm surge events by examining those historic sites through sediment core samples. “I developed a model for finding unmarked or unmapped burial grounds that are mass grave sites, which could have potentially been where the dead were buried from a major hurricane event,” she says." - Markkitt (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

It is possible that she is working on her dissertation independently. - Markkitt (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Possible, but unlikely. The PhD in Geography program at FSU requires two years of coursework, not including comprehensive exams and a prospectus defense, which typically requires a third year of study. Jones is not listed as ABD, so it's unlikely she is at the dissertation stage yet. FSU also requires PhD Students to enroll in an addition 24 hours of dissertation research credits (GEO 6980) after coursework. This is meant to prevent students from dropping out and writing the dissertation on their own - even if they do so, they'll still need to enroll in, and pay for, those extra credits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.213.16 (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Stalking / Harassment case
Charges in an old, unrelated case resurfaced after Filipkowski's resignation: Jones had been charged with harassment for allegedly posting nude photos of her ex-boyfriend online. Jones still has an open case regarding a separate incident of stalking/cyber stalking. Governor Ron DeSantis first brought up the old allegation in a 2020 press conference where he discussed the decision to fire her.


 * I've pulled this out of the article - it needs more development and balance to ensure it meets WP:BLP and WP:RS. An empty link to a case search tool is certainly not a reliable source itself. —  xaosflux  Talk 16:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A version could be reintroduced, but if it will be its own section, it should be able to support itself. "unrelated case": if this section is about this case, it isn't unrelated to anything. A link to search court cases is not a reliable source, so that can't be used - meaning the statements it is supporting are lacking.  That being said, this situation does seem to be at least somewhat notable related to the article subject -- especially if claims that false allegations of "unrelated" issues are being introduced to discredit the subject - however that would also need to be supported by reliable sources.  Anyone should feel welcome to carefully rewrite this section or contribute ideas for it here. —  xaosflux  Talk 16:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Concur. Also, when I actually search the county's Cases for her name, the 'Stalking' Case is referred to as 'Closed', not 'Open'; Evidenced by no court activity on that court case for more than a year. https://cvweb.leonclerk.com/public/online_services/search_courts/process.asp?report=full_view&caseid=2938847&jiscaseid= — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.225.130 (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I too agree. There was a case in July, but it is unrelated and was apparently dismissed. This can be noted in proper context somewhere, but not as a separate section. My very best wishes (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I also agree (and have pulled another version of this out of the article). At a minimum it needs to be well sourced, and to me that means national or international news sources, not primary sources, local news, blogs, etc. Levivich harass/hound 05:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that this part needs to be re-written, but I disagree that it isn't well-sourced. The CNN article (12/07) devoted two paragraphs to the misdemeanor case and includes a direct response from Jones to CNN explaining what had transpired (which was not a denial). 2601:184:497F:6B60:890C:DD71:E63D:A9B4 (talk) 03:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * ALERT: BLP Minefield - I created a "Personal Life" section thinking I'd place the stalking information in there. After reading up a little more about the stalking thing though, this content seems like a BLP nightmare waiting to happen. Frankly, it's a bit surprising to me that anyone is backing this woman. It's hard to know how to handle this article in a fair and neutral way. At the moment, it seems like a bit of a whitewash for Jones. Perhaps the "attractive white female" bias is at play? NickCT (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Or maybe Republican politicians are inventing lies to get rid of people confronting them with uncomfortable truths, as they usually do? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * - Bingo! Mine #1. Any particular "lies" or was that just general rhetoric against "fake news"? NickCT (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh come on. Have you been living in a cave where you can only get Fox News? Start with Swiftboating, go on to Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation, then John Kerry military service controversy, Birtherism, ...
 * In any case, any scientist is much more credible than any Republican politician. If you want to turn this BLP into an atttack page, as you seem to be intending, you'll need really good sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * - Well..... as a scientist, let me thank you for your vote of confidence. The question was really; any particular "lies" about the subject of this article ? But that's certainly a good list political shenanigans you scrolled through. Congrats. We shouldn't turn this page into an "attack page", but we also shouldn't avoid WP:DUE and verifiable details. And of course we'll need really good sources. That's basically the whole principle behind WP:BLP. NickCT (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by "per talk" in this edit replacing the content that was removed. There is not consensus here. I've reverted. Additionally, your version is less complete that previous versions that were object to and removed. For example, your version mentions charges being filed but doesn't mention charges being dropped. I've also removed the rest of the personal life section while I'm reverting, because in a current-event, high-profile BLP case, why should we note where she lives and include her husband's name? They are not notable, significant, nor have anything to do with the topic, other than being her family and residence. Normally that's included in a biography, sure, but I think there are overriding privacy concerns for non-public figures currently in the news. I'm also going to start a thread suggesting we move this to a new title and re-scope it, while we're at it. Levivich harass/hound 17:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * - We can certainly add information about the charges being dropped. I really only created the "Personal life" section to address the concerns above about there not being an appropriate section to add the content in question. Where do you think it should be added? Bit surprised by the objection to the husband's name. Standard biographical information, no? As to "non-public figures"; that seems like a pretty ambiguous classification. Seems like she sought attention, and got it..... That doesn't make her a public figure? NickCT (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I concede under our public figure rules, her seeking media attention counts. And yes, family and residence is standard biography information on Wikipedia. I'm not suggesting you're making a BLP violation or anything like that. I'm just suggesting that, in situations where "ordinary people" become high-profile due to their involvement in some current event, and it's controversial, and say they're the subject of death threats and things like that... in those situations, we do better to not include family and residence information, even if we don't have a rule about it. For example, this was done in the George Floyd articles, where consensus was not to post information about the families or residences of the police officers involved, even though that information was reported by reliable sources. I think we should make the same choice here.
 * W/r/t the stalking criminal charges. Since the charges have been dropped, I'm not sure it's DUE, even if it's reported. I know we're not !voting on things, but if there were like an RFC about including it, I would probably !vote to exclude it altogether on DUE grounds.
 * But that leads me to a broader issue, which is the topic of this article: Rebekah Jones. This person, and her life, are not notable, in my view. The scandal is notable. She arguably plays a major role in a major event and thus would pass our notability criteria for a stand-alone page (I'm not suggesting an AFD is a good idea), but per WP:PAGEDECIDE, I think we should look at whether we want an article about Rebekah Jones that mentions the scandal, or an article about the scandal that mentions Rebekah Jones. I think the latter. And thus Jones's criminal history wouldn't really be DUE in the latter article. I've started the thread below to discuss that further. I'm curious to hear your thoughts about the scope/title, and also whether you think Jones's criminal history would still be relevant even if the article were re-scoped/re-titled as I'm suggesting? Levivich harass/hound 18:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * re "the subject of death threats" - Doesn't seem that likely. Neither we, nor they are really important enough for that. Plus, the "residence information" in this case is a township. That's not really a specific residence.
 * re "I'm not sure it's DUE, even if it's reported" - It seems like the consensus above is that it is due, but that we're just not sure where to put it. If you want to figure out where it goes, you're welcome to.
 * Whether something is "due" or not is usually of matter of whether the weight we are giving it is similar to the weight given by RS's. The charges are briefly mentioned in RS's. They should be briefly mentioned here.
 * re "broader issue, which is the topic of this article....notable" - That's possible. But something for another thread. NickCT (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW the subject has told the media she has received death threats. We are "important enough" for that: if anyone wants to know where someone lives or their family members' names, Wikipedia is the first place they'll look; don't forget we're talking about what details should be included on the page that is the top google result for the subject's name. That's true for every BLP, which is why BLP (in spirit and letter) is so important.
 * I don't see that the consensus in this discussion is that the content is DUE; in my view it's the opposite. But regardless, given that everyone agrees this is a "BLP minefield", I think any posted content should be workshopped on the talk page and explicitly agreed-to before posting.
 * I agree the broader issue is for another thread. It might be more efficient to deal with that first before spending time on the criminal history content.
 * However I don't want to be stonewalling. Aside from the fact that I'm just one editor and don't WP:OWN the page and my objection alone isn't enough to keep content out, I'd still be open to supporting some content but first I'd want it to be a summary of three "top shelf" national or international sources. (I don't agree with using local news sources as sources for this.) The sources should be recent (at least post-charges-dropped; I'm not sure what the most-recent significant relevant event was). So if we were to pursue this, I think before posting anything to the mainspace article, we should identify the three best sources, look at what details they report and with what emphasis, draft some language summarizing those three sources, and make sure there's consensus for that language on the talk page. Levivich harass/hound 20:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * - re "I don't want to be stonewalling" - You're not stonewalling. This is obviously info fraught w/ WP:BLP/WP:NPOV issues. It's important we get it right through consensus. But it's also important that we don't simply censor it b/c the info is "too hot" to handle.
 * re "identify the three best sources" - Did you see my initial sources? All national level, mainstream outlets. I thought they were pretty high-quality. High quality enough to pass the BLP sniff test at least.
 * re "We are "important enough" " - I think we like to imagine that. Can you point to a single example of someone who was physically harmed b/c their information was got through Wikipedia?
 * re "FWIW the subject has told the media she has received death threats" - You believe the subject at this point? I don't want to be a hater, but there seems to be a little bit of a Florida Woman thing going on here.
 * re "I don't see that the consensus in this discussion " - Did you see the comments above re "this part needs to be re-written", "This can be noted in proper context somewhere" & "A version could be reintroduced"? Seems like at least three folks thought it could go in. NickCT (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no trouble believing that at least one person on Twitter tweeted something like "die b*tch", given what the internet is like. And I think OSers would say that yes, people have been harmed by personal details being posted on Wikipedia. But all that aside, looking at the three sources in the version I reverted:
 * The entirety of NYT's coverage of criminal history: Note the lack of inclusion of certain details.
 * This is not CBS News, this is a local CBS affiliate, WPEC aka CBS 12. It's not CBS's national reporters, fact checkers, or editors working on this article. It's written by a journalist who works for CBS 12, not CBS.
 * The national CBS News has published many articles about this story. The only mention I can find from CBS News is, which has one sentence, , with no details. This is part of why I'm not sure this content is DUE.
 * As above, this is not NPR, it's WUFT, a local NPR affiliate. This didn't come from NPR News. NPR has covered this story, but I cannot find any NPR article that mentions the other criminal history.
 * Looking beyond those source:
 * Washington Post has one mention I can find, along the same lines as NYT
 * NBC News has one mention, from last May :
 * I checked and can't find ABC, BBC, or PBS covering the criminal history at all.
 * Obviously not an exhaustive search, but I'd really feel more comfortable with a third national/international source to go with NYT and WaPo. This is because I count it this way:
 * Mentioned: NYT, WaPo
 * Barely mentioned: NBC
 * Not mentioned at all: CBS, ABC, BBC, PBS, NPR
 * And so I think the weight of the source is "don't mention". Levivich harass/hound 21:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * - re "one person on Twitter tweeted something like "die b*tch"" - Ha! Probably true. But then again, that's sorta Twitter for you. I think someone once tweeted that at me. Didn't really seem like a credible threat.
 * Not sure about you, but I would put NPR affiliates in a pretty high tier as far as RS quality goes. The fact WUFT is Florida's affiliate, seems to make it appropriate.
 * Just so I understand your argument here, are you saying that because several sources don't mention the charges, we shouldn't either? NickCT (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm saying we shouldn't include a detail that is not included in a majority of national/international RSes (as a general principal). Levivich harass/hound 03:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * - Hmmmmm... Surely the great majority of details in the article presently are not included in a majority of national/international RS's. NickCT (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah. See other section :-) Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, and looking at this topic from a global perspective, who the whistleblower is, isn't very important (it almost never is). Local sources will always profile the local person receiving national/international media attention, so it's possible to construct a biography that's reliably-sourced, but in my view, if you look at significance of details from a global perspective, what's significant about this story is what the government is doing, and not who the whistleblower is. But scope-of-the-article aside, if you look at national/int'l media that cover this person, most of them don't mention her criminal history.
 * But anyway if you want to propose some language that summarizes/cites NYT, WaPo, and NBC, and other editors agree to it, I'm not gonna oppose it. If there were a third source like NYT/WaPo that wrote a paragraph about it, I might even support inclusion. :-)
 * (I still think we should keep family names and residence out, per the same principle, unless a majority of national/int'l sources include those details.) Levivich harass/hound 03:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * - Sorry for a late reply. Was on Wikibreak for the holidays. As I said earlier, I agree that generally the whistleblower in these kinds of things isn't important, or isn't as important as "what the government is doing". In this case though, the whistleblower's background seems to raise some credibility issues, which may be helpful for readers to put the scandal in context.
 * Regarding a third source; acknowledging there may be some "quality" issues here, but how about USA Today?
 * I propose readding the wording I had before with the addition of the "charges dropped" thing that you'd wanted. Not sure what section to put it under. Maybe create one called "legal issues"? NickCT (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - Sorry for a late reply. Was on Wikibreak for the holidays. As I said earlier, I agree that generally the whistleblower in these kinds of things isn't important, or isn't as important as "what the government is doing". In this case though, the whistleblower's background seems to raise some credibility issues, which may be helpful for readers to put the scandal in context.
 * Regarding a third source; acknowledging there may be some "quality" issues here, but how about USA Today?
 * I propose readding the wording I had before with the addition of the "charges dropped" thing that you'd wanted. Not sure what section to put it under. Maybe create one called "legal issues"? NickCT (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

No worries, hope you had a good holiday break and Happy New Year! Yeah, USA Today isn't exactly top-quality, but it is national in scope, and green at WP:RSP, so yeah, I would support re-adding the content sourced to NYT, WaPo, and USA Today, but I think we should be careful to include the details that those three include, and not others (so not calling it "revenge porn"). Collecting the three sources:
 * NYT:
 * WaPo:
 * USA Today:
 * What I reverted:

The core details appear to be:
 * 1) Has history with law enforcement (all three sources say this or some variation)
 * 2) WaPo says "former romantic partner," USA Today says "an acrimonious breakup", and only NYT says "one of her former students when she was a graduate assistant". Based on this, I don't think we should say "one of her students", as that's not accurate, and 2-out-of-3 don't say "student" at all, and NYT says "former student". This is likely because a relationship between a graduate assistant and a former student is quite different from, say, a relationship between a tenured professor and a current student. I'd go for "former romantic partner" or similar.
 * 3) "Posting revenge porn" isn't supported by these three sources
 * 4) There is one active charge, for cyberstalking, we should include this
 * 5) NYT says her lawyer says she had agreed to a plea deal but prosecutors rescinded it shortly before the raid. The other two don't mention this. WaPo says she pleaded not guilty, which is sort of saying the opposite of NYT. USA Today just describes it as "active" without talking about whether she was offered or accept a plea deal, or how she pled. I guess under the rules of 2-out-of-3, we should leave the alleged plea deal out?
 * 6) There is another cyberstalking case, as well as other charges (robbery, sexual cyber-harassment, criminal mischief, trespassing, contempt, and violation of a domestic injunction), all of which stem from an alleged violation of a domestic injunction, all of which were dropped. All three mention "dropped charges" in some form, with varying degrees of specificity. I think we should include and summarize it, something like, "A number of prior charges stemming from a domestic violence injunction were dropped."

So maybe we add something like: I'm pretty flexible on the wording so long as it's verified by those three sources. Levivich harass/hound 18:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your wording seems like a good start. re "is quite different from, say, a relationship between a tenured professor and a current student"; it's somewhat different. Still generally considered inappropriate according to most (e.g. here). We can certainly call out that she was a graduate student at the time of the relationship, but it should probably be mentioned. Are you going to insist on three major sources that specifically say she was a graduate assistant at the time? NickCT (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nah :-) That she was a graduate assistant at the time doesn't seem like a controversial or disputed detail. I'm not opposed to including that. But I wonder what is the relevance of saying she was a graduate assistant at the time if we don't say that the alleged victim was her student at the time? If you think it's really important to note graduate assistant + student, I'm OK with it. That he was a student at the time also doesn't appear to be disputed. So it passes V and it's not a BLP vio. I might think it's UNDUE, but the New York Times doesn't, so I'm happy to roll with it. Levivich harass/hound 03:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - re "you think it's really important to note graduate assistant + student, I'm OK with it" - I think it puts a completely different "spin" on the story. I'm sorta loathe to accuse people of sexism, b/c it's a cliched accusation on WP and almost always wrong, but I'm curious how you'd feel if the genders were switched in this circumstance (i.e. 28 year male grad student picking up a 19/20 year old undergrad girl they were teaching). You're obviously a clever chappy, so I imagine you've been to college. At the school I went to, this type of thing would have been a pretty serious scandal. NickCT (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the age difference is the relevant issue, I think it's the teacher/student power dynamic, similar to supervisor/employee power dynamic. If you're suggesting including "graduate assistant" but not "student", that's works for me, too. Levivich harass/hound 04:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh sure. The power dynamic is probably the more serious part of it. As the guideline I pointed to earlier called out, it raises some obvious COI issues. But the age difference certainly doesn't make the thing any less scandalous.
 * Anyways, seems like we've mostly reached consensus here. When I have a little time, I'll put in the wording you'd generated. NickCT (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, thanks! Levivich harass/hound 17:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * more info on the harassment here https://twitter.com/BartyConroy/status/1263620232662433793. Somebody have a link to the manifesto ? it is for, err... encyclopedic purpose. "it was warm the day we met" 93.3.33.148 (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Good note, but probably not a reliable source. NickCT (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

totally wrong article ?
based on this, which appears to be based on NPR, this entire article needs to be totally rewritten ? https://twitter.com/HashtagGriswold/status/1358867996639432704 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.17.105 (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, . Trivialist (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Not a scientist
Nowhere in her professional background does it say she's a scientist. This should be deleted from her intro. (She's not a whistleblower either, but that is another matter.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.200.10.137 (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Jones is referred to as a "data scientist", not "scientist". Alyo  (chat·edits) 22:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

She's not any type of scientist. To keep that on her page is dishonest. She was a "data analyst" at her FDOH job, which gained her notoriety.47.200.10.137 (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As you have just been told, there are sources which call her a data scientist. Your opinion is not relevant. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Cite these sources. To my knowledge, no credible source still refers to her as a scientist of any type because she isn't one. If you have one, I'll concede to your opinion. 47.200.10.137 (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Since that has already been provided, I think this discussion is done then. Alyo  (chat·edits) 15:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There are an extensive number of sources that call her a "data scientist". Not many that call her an "environmental scientist", which seems to be how she describes herself. NickCT (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Whistleblower vs activist
Alright, lets chat. Your initial edit here very clearly espouses a point of view that you're trying to push, which is obviously against WP policy. Jones has been consistently referred to as a whistleblower, so use of this word is entirely verifiable. If editors here want to use the word "activist", that's entirely fine--I really don't think the word infers what you think it infers--but I don't really regard your POV-based reasoning as persuasive. "Data activist" is another descriptor I've seen in sourcing, but calling her an activist suggests she is notable for activism as popularly defined, not the whistle-blowing activities that sources seem to back up. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * For : The initial "whistleblower" addition to this article was made by Rebekah Jones' now-deleted account Georebekah. Another edit was made by an unregistered account with a Florida IP address, 3 minutes before Georebekah's first edit, with the comment "This woman is being hailed as a hero and whistleblower." Also, the description of the photo in the article, authored by Georebekeh (photo should be changed due to conflict of interest?), is "Photo of Florida Whistleblower Rebekah Jones, who was ousted from her position as lead data and surveillance manager during the COVID-19 pandemic for refusing to manipulate data."


 * However, a conflict of interest violation doesn't mean the information is wrong. Various media outlets immediately echoed her whistleblower sentiment in reporting, and the title has stuck in reports about her, as it is her claim to fame at this point. The title is controversial because her claim that she was asked to manipulate data to facilitate reopening Florida, which was her whistleblower action, is contested by verifiable sources. If these sources are compiled and included in this article, I think that an explanation of the whistleblower label controversy is very relevant, and warranted in the article, including its early and continued use as a self-descriptive. I'd like to work this out here in the talk page rather than in the edit history of the article. Sudopudge (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A lot of conservative sources  take a much less rosy view of Jones, and NPR  uses "self-described whistleblower" (this link is a reference for the article).  At the very least, the article should indicate that this label is challenged. Aside from this, the second paragraph of "alternative COVID dashboards" seems entirely unsourced (the source at the end doesn't say much other than she tweeted). I'm a little bit worried about NPOV on this article. DrIdiot (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Other parts of the article read a bit like an advertisement. E.g. is this Medium coronavirus blog notable? "Became an important source of information" -- is this really true? What is Constantine Cannon -- are they notable? What is "Elemental" -- a blog?  As far as I can tell these should be removed. DrIdiot (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Re: whistleblower, from NYT: "But Ms. Jones has not been universally embraced as a whistle-blower." DrIdiot (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

This page should be deleted for non-notability Nweil (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

removed content
I removed the following because it's unclear whether the two named people are the same. I imagine this is a fairly common name. Need RS to establish they are the same, otherwise it's WP:OR. DrIdiot (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Jones also faced criminal charges in Louisiana in 2016, where she was arrested and charged by the LSU Police Department with one count each of battery on a police officer and remaining after forbidden and two counts of resisting arrest after refusing to vacate a Louisiana State University office upon being dismissed from her staff position.


 * I believe this article corroborates that it's this Rebekah Jones - https://wusfnews.wusf.usf.edu/courts-law/2020-12-16/fdle-chief-defends-agents-says-jones-conspiracy-allegation-sounds-ridiculous Anastrophe (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * OK added it back DrIdiot (talk) 06:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

removed quote
I removed the following content: Months later, Jones summarized the episode saying: "They never actually denied what I was saying. They said I was insubordinate, that I didn't listen to my superiors, and that was true. They asked me to do something wrong and I didn't do it."

Its inclusion isn't justified by the context, and see Neutral_point_of_view DrIdiot (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Also removing the following: Nikki Fried, the Florida Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services, asked responsible officials to explain the firing in a Cabinet meeting. The Urban and Regional Information Systems Association of GIS professionals issued a statement of concern.

Reason: the Fried statement is just asking for an explanation. It didn't lead anywhere, and it's unclear why it is significant. The GIS letter (above quote a bit different from original since I was in the middle of an edit) is a statement of concern, but it says "though the facts have not been made public" -- to include this feels a bit like original research. The letter is just a preliminary letter of concern. If we are to include this content I think we need to explain it, and through RS. DrIdiot (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Non-policy inquiry
I hate to say it, but I find it... unseemly... that this article sports a self-portrait of the subject of this article. It seems inappropriate to use her own self-made, pouty glamour shot. Since the subject herself attempted to edit this article, and published the self-portrait seemingly license free for its use here, it dances right around the edges of COI. I realize that WP encourages the use of photos. But it also doesn't require photos. I looked around for an appropriate image that had acceptable licensing but couldn't find one. If others could investigate where I came up short it would be appreciated. If none can be found, I think removing her self-portrait would be appropriate. That's just my own, non-policy-based opinion however. Anastrophe (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree. The initial description of the image was "Photo of Florida Whistleblower Rebekah Jones, who was ousted from her position as lead data and surveillance manager during the COVID-19 pandemic for refusing to manipulate data." which was also an addition made by Rebekah Jones herself. A selfie provided by the subject in question, who as others have pointed out then tweeted: Dare I say... I kinda look hot on my Wikipedia page seems dubious for an encyclopedia. Sudopudge (talk)
 * I don't really see the issue with the image being self-submitted or with it being flattering (it's not like we typically choose *unflattering* photos for biographies). WanderingWanda (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ultimately provided the photo depicts the subject and isn't so bad as to be confusing or harmful, it's a moot point until and unless someone can find another free photo. Selfies are hardly uncommon as the photos for relatively unknown subjects, but even for better known ones, it's fairly common for us to use official portraits. While official portraits are generally better than selfies in a number of ways, they're still generally inherently intended to be flattering. Nil Einne (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if this will influence your decision, but it looks like Rebekah Jones changed her mind about the selfie she provided. In November she tweeted: "Here's my wikipedia page with dozens of references. I am not a fan of the picture they chose but w/e lol".

"these are all lies"?
I presume vandalism. --2607:FEA8:D5DF:1AF0:DD5D:CE11:7C78:B703 (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Unusable as a source but interesting
Rebecca Watson first took Jones' side (she seems to have deleted that post), then noticed she had been had. I came here after reading her first piece and swallowed it too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * She mainly cites this article, apparently exposing Jones as early as in May 2021 : 'Rebekah Jones, the COVID Whistleblower Who Wasn’t', By Charles C. W. Cooke. This calls for reviewing some aspect of the article. Moez talk 16:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

"Whistleblower"
Might be worth revisiting this. In the lede it's stated that "some" refer to her as a whistleblower, and others question it. I'm not sure it's worthwhile to specify exactly who in the lede, but:
 * Cosmo called her a whistleblower.
 * A local NPR station calls her a whistleblower
 * Many conservative media outlets question the claim very explicitly.
 * Most importantly: the New York Times finds the "questioning" of the label by "critics" credible enough to mention in their article

To me the New York Times article is the most important; it's the most reliable and neutral. However, it's difficult to attribute this "questioning" to anyone in particular. I don't think it makes sense to list this kind of thing out in the lede. If desired, one could make a section in the body for it, but I personally find it also unnecessary. I've removed the "who" tags in the lede and added "some media outlets" to clarify a little bit. In any case they are cited immediately after. DrIdiot (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I initially wanted to solve this problem, but found there was really only one source of direct criticsm, which was the National Review piece. After looking at the NYT piece, I agree it is difficult to attribute who exactly questions her claims; if the NYT says "some critics", it'd probably be okay for the lede here to say the same, with the references to support it. Yeeno   (talk) 🍁 20:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Update: she has been officially recognized as a whistleblower by the Office of Inspector General for the state of Florida. The las sentence in the lede gives undue weight of opinions about the claim that she could be a whistleblower. 2601:582:80:78E0:AD22:1445:6623:14E2 (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You are conflating a state-sanctioned ruling for protections with vernacular use of the term, which predates such state rules by more than a century. Her status as a whistleblower remains questionable based upon the totality of sources and the weight of evidence that continues to be uncovered, contradicting her claims.Anastrophe (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What reliable evidence contradicts her claims?2603:6081:2A0C:0:BF4C:A02F:60E5:16A4 (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)