Talk:Rebekah Jones/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Request edit on 17 June 2021

• What I think should be changed:
• Why it should be changed:
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Someone keeps deleting the whistleblower title in the intro to the article. She was given official whistleblower status on May 28. Cited here by AP News -->

Given the fact that Jones is officially recognized as a whistleblower, the last sentence of the intro paragraph - "Media outlets have named her a whistleblower,[2][3] though this title has also been challenged by others who question her claims.[4][5]" - gives undue weight using juxtaposition to cast doubt on her official whistleblower status cited earlier. Specifically, it places undue weight on a minority viewpoint: "though this title has also been challenged by others who question her claims." Major media outlets have recognized her as an official whistleblower. See below for citations. Example 1 (Tampa Bay Times; regional) - Example 2 (AP News, national) - Example 3 (Florida Today; statewide) -

`````Facts21Century

Facts21stCentury (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Comment. The fact that the attempts at inclusion of this in the lede have come rapid fire from several different anonymous IP addresses in the last couple of days - even though the status was conferred more than two weeks ago - as well as this apparently purpose-created new account with a single contribution, suggest potential COI attempts at influencing the content, or at best, aggressive POV pushing.

However! That said, what the article needs is rewording of the lead. Her having been granted whistleblower status - which provides her with legal protections against retaliation - confers no verification, vindication, or any other substance to her claims, which remain in doubt. Everyone should be afforded protection from retaliation, fundamentally 'innocent until proven guilty'. It still remains true that the validity of her claims are questionable, _and_ that the validity of her whistleblower "status" remains questioned by reliable sources (there's a difference between the vernacular meaning of being a whistleblower, and the legal meaning). So, all that bloviation behind me, I'll take a stab at reworking the existing text. It's important however that neither her whistleblower status in law or in vernacular are terribly important to the overall matters surrounding her, so too much space devoted to it would be NPOV to the totality of the article. Anastrophe (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please establish a consensus with editors engaged in the subject area before using the {{Request edit}} template for this proposed change. Melmann 17:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The two "anonymous" IP addresses have been my own, and I have two because my DHCP lease expired with my ISP. They are not in any proxy DB or on any IP blacklist. They are not, in any way, anonymous. This account's creation could very well coincide with your own attempt to keep this page locked to avoid any edits to the whistleblower comment that you have thus far been successful in campaigning for the inclusion of. Namely, that her status as a whistleblower is contested, even though there are no credible, unbiased sources to support this claim. You have yet to address the lack of credible sources for your claim, and your refusal to do so and instead cast aspersions upon other editors, in my opinion, betrays your malicious intentions. Put up or shut up. Why should a political smear be featured front and center in the Wikipedia article of a living person? Particularly when the only detailed articles which aim to support the smear are from biased sources?172.73.115.189 (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I've said all I need to say. I have little use for arguments that - strictly because a source leans conservative - it is therefore unreliable, biased, and a smear, which is no more rational than claiming that if a source leans left it is also explicitly unreliable &c. Have you bothered to read the National Review article? It is a carefully researched story, backed up by verifiable sourcing, and debunks the myths that Jones has attempted to promulgate about herself. If it were a smear, we could surely have counted upon Ms. Jones to have raised a hue-and-cry, yet there's been nothing but crickets. The reason the NatRev article has attracted so much vitriol from 'the other side' (see these discussions here) is because it makes a compelling argument against most of the nonsense surrounding Ms. Jones, so the tactic is to attack the messenger, since the message itself is so much harder to dismiss. But I digress. Bias, per se, is not a disqualifier of journalistic sources. Anastrophe (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The National Review article in question can be outlined, in order, as follows: 1. Rhetorical language establishing the premise of the article. 2. Smears against Jones regarding her past arrests, for which she was never convicted. 3. What appears to be carefully-worded characterization of her establishment of an alternative Covid dashboard for the purpose of sharing data which Jones considered more accurate than the data published by the state of Florida at the time (and which she maintains is more accurate to this day). This carefully-worded characterization leaves out the motive Jones had for publishing data on her own, and is careful to avoid any mention of specifics beyond generic language. The resultant wording causes the reader to assume that Jones improperly stole data, which isn't the case. 4. Next, there are claims that make it appear as though Jones deliberately sabotaged the government dashboard, which Jones later refutes in a Miami Herald article whose author confirms that the dashboard was constantly crashing at that time, mostly due to improperly structured data which had nothing to do with Jones. 5. Then there is an assertion that Jones maliciously tried to lock out other administrators of the dashboard system. The assertion that this behavior was malicious, without taking into account her complaint that data was being manipulated (particularly when this very article also later says Jones justified her actions citing security concerns) is also concerning from a credibility/bias perspective. 6. More general assertions that Jones is lying, without clear evidence to support these assertions. 7. Assertions that Jones did not have access to raw data, and that, because she was compiling data from other people's work, it would have been impossible to falsify the numbers as Jones has claimed. This is speculative, and is not supported by clear evidence either. 8. Another assertion that Jones is lying about the state falsifying data, this time by asserting that because Jones' own dashboard displays stats differently, this also must be the basis of her whistleblower complaint. If this were true, the Florida Office of Inspector General would not have granted her whistleblower protections. Merely having disagreements over the methods with which data is displayed would not rise to the level required under Florida law for whistleblower protections. 9. Reverts back to attacking her character personally by referencing prior domestic disturbances she had with a prior boyfriend. These continuous references to Jones' prior arrests/law enforcement contact are irrelevant to her whistleblower complaint, but the author includes them anyway. 10. Another falsehood is stated at this point. This time, regarding the supposed "leakage" of personal data for 19,000 workers with the FDOH. The supposed personal data was work-related contact data (which was stored on a server with publicly accessible login credentials) which Jones was accused of using to try to contact others within the department to investigate and try to find further evidence of data falsification. The fact that this data was used by Jones for investigative purposes in connection with her official complaint is also conveniently left out of the article. 11. Engages in speculation regarding whether or not she was actually surprised by the police raid by referencing a hand-written note on what appears to be a plastic box in the background which has nothing to do with the raid. This appears to serve no purpose other than to attempt to discredit Jones personally, and is based entirely on conjecture. 12. The article then references Jones' lawsuit against the police, part of which involved alleged excessive force. One allegation was that the officers pointed guns at her, and at her children. In the article, the author states that the bodycamera footage released by the state does not show guns being pointed at anyone inside the house. This is false, as the footage shows police aiming at least one firearm at Jones as she steps outside. Officers then enter with guns drawn, and Jones is heard crying about the police pointing guns at her children in the house. Other credible sources have confirmed that at this time, Jones' children and husband were coming down the stairs to the first floor of the house where the police were. This is also conveniently left out of the article.

So, in short, the article uses vague language to cause the reader to assume things which are not true (and provably so). There is no substantiated claim made in the article which would refute any of Jones' core claims in her whistleblower complaint. The entirety of the article where there is evidentiary support is nothing more than a set of references to Jones' past domestic relationship issues, which are not relevant to the question of the veracity of her whistleblower complaint. Tell me where, in any of this, there is any substantive evidence which justifies casting aspersions upon this woman's character. Particularly in the area of her status as a whistleblower.172.73.115.189 (talk) 06:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. You've provided _your interpretation_ of the article. I'm glad you have an interpretation. It's an interpretation clouded by your biases. For which I make no moral or ethical claims, as I have my own interpretation and biases. The important FACT here is that your biased interpretation, and my biased interpretation, carry no weight. What carries weight is the source. A respected journalist wrote an article, investigating Jones, and Jones's claims. The source, National Review, is reliable. You can claim that it's unreliable because it is 'right wing', but that is immaterial. The article is given a small amount of coverage in this BLP - exceptionally small compared to other sources. The article offers a "contrary" view to the narrative promulgated by and regarding Jones. 'Minority' views, represented as such in an article, are relevant and important, and neatly fit within WP:WEIGHT, which is precisely how the guideline works. If this article were to whitewash contrary claims about Jones, Jones's claims, and Jones's behavior, that would violate policy. As it is, much of the article is a 'puff piece' about her, written as if by adoring fans. Or at least it was, before more objective editors took to balancing the representations.

As an aside, I would suggest learning more about data science, and data manipulation, and network/computer security. Some of what you've written is objectively false within those regimes. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant, particularly about highly technical matters, but merely parroting what other ill-informed people have written doesn't help the argument. I'm a recently retired Systems Administrator, and know this stuff intimately. I'd be happy to share my knowledge with you (not here on this article page obviously though!) so you can approach those aspects of the arguments with more authority. But in short, Jones had no ability to modify the data herself, so her claim that she was asked/told to modify the data is a falsehood she promulgated. When she locked others out of access, what she did would be cyber sabotage, as misuse of administrator privileges is illegal - "security concerns" are required to be brought to the attention of the security staff for mitigation, not a blank check to lock one's peers out of the system.

But I digress. The NatRev article is given small coverage. Contrary _opinion_ coverage on a brouhaha that is still ongoing is perfectly legitimate. The claim that this is some huge rightwing conspiracy - by merely having one sentence in the article that states that she is not regarded by all persons on the planet as a sainted whistleblower, is fair and accurate, and not disparaging. Time to drop the stick.

(Last comment: please replace each numbered beginning of a line with an octothorpe (#) and a space. This will create a readable list of your points, rather than them running together.) Anastrophe (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Anastrophe, National Review is a yellow source per WP:RSP, which says "There is no consensus on the reliability of National Review" and "Take care to ensure that content from the National Review constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy." I do not mean to dispute your argument or the IP's, but this article may give the NR story undue weight per BLP if statements in Wikivoice rely on it. Llll5032 (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I know that. No consensus on reliability doesn't mean excluded, of course. Based upon the _investigative_ nature of the article in question, I don't think it falls strictly into the 'opinion' realm. Further, NPOV doesn't mean that POV sources can't or shouldn't be used, they must merely be in proportion to the coverage. I think the single sentence that references NR, that the _opinion_ regarding whether she is/was a whistleblower is not universal, is not evidence of a right-wing conspiracy to smear Jones, nor is it out of proportion. The questions surrounding Jones's claims and behavior, and the overarching matter of whether Florida at the state level misrepresented data, are still open. Time will give a clearer picture. But at this time, the question of whether she genuinely was a whistleblower (in the vernacular meaning) remains open, regardless of Florida government giving her 'whistleblower' protections against retaliation by the state (which I happen to fully support, retaliation is wrong, full stop). Anastrophe (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Anastrophe, my point is only that WP:BLPRS sets a high standard that a yellow RSP source may not meet. We should consider this especially for the top of the article. Llll5032 (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree, having dived (dove?) deeper. I'll adjust the article, and certainly open to further collaboration. Anastrophe (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Heh, of course, the article is protected at this time. I'll submit a request. Anastrophe (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 August 2021

Adjust lede as follows to reflect appropriate weight, expand in body:

Current:

Some media outlets have named her a whistleblower, and the Florida Office of Inspector General has legally designated her as such; however, this title has also been challenged by others who question the validity of her claims.

Proposed:

Jones is often referred to as a whistleblower; she was granted whistleblower protections by the Florida Office of Inspector General in May, 2021.

(Note that the sources are being moved into section two - "Firing from Florida Department of Health" - rather than the lede, per MOS, as below:)

Current:

Jones was granted formal whistleblower status by the Florida Office of Inspector General in May 2021.

Proposed:

Jones is often referred to as a whistleblower; she was granted formal whistleblower protections by the Florida Office of Inspector General in late May 2021. That perception is not universal, as the validity of her claims has been challenged. Anastrophe (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done (as to the immediate administrator edit request) - this page is not protected and may be edited directly. — xaosflux <sup>Talk</sup> 15:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Proposed change to lede and section two to re-jigger the whistleblower stuff

I was about to submit an edit request, but discussion must come first. Here's what I was about to submit. I have a vague recollection that there's a 'special' way that sources can be entered on a talk page so that they won't disrupt discussion flow, but for the life of me I can't find it. If anyone knows, please educate me!

Adjust lede as follows to reflect appropriate weight:

Current:

Some media outlets have named her a whistleblower, and the Florida Office of Inspector General has legally designated her as such; however, this title has also been challenged by others who question the validity of her claims.

Proposed:

Jones is often referred to as a whistleblower; she was granted whistleblower protections by the Florida Office of Inspector General in May, 2021.

(Note that the sources are being moved into section two - "Firing from Florida Department of Health" - rather than the lede, per MOS, as below:)

Current:

Jones was granted formal whistleblower status by the Florida Office of Inspector General in May 2021.

Proposed:

Jones is often referred to as a whistleblower; she was granted formal whistleblower protections by the Florida Office of Inspector General in late May 2021. That perception is not universal, as the validity of her claims has been challenged.

References

Thanks, Anastrophe. At the top it may be most neutral to say simply that she was formally named a whistleblower as the Florida Office of Inspector General investigates her claims (without trying to count which other sources consider her a whistleblower or not). Does that solve the WP:DUE issue? Llll5032 (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the distinction between the vernacular usage and the state protections is meaningful. Anastrophe (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It should also be clarified that "whistleblower status" does not mean that she is actually a whistleblower. The actual statute makes clear that this status applies to anyone who is "alleging improper use of governmental office, gross waste of funds, or any other abuse or gross neglect of duty on the part of an agency, public officer, or employee". It does not infer legitimacy, or illegitimacy, to her claims. The fact media outlets appear to be illiterate is on them. Toa Nidhiki05 23:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Since we're still waiting on further input, rather than reposting the above with modifications, I'm going to change it directly to clarify the distinctions; this is an informal discussion anyway so I see no harm in doing it this way. Anastrophe (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Are any RS making this distinction about Jones? Llll5032 (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Several news sources quoted both Florida Department of Health officials and the governor's spokesperson that the status doesn't imply vindication or verification of any of her claims, only legal protections. https://www.tampabay.com/news/health/2021/05/28/former-health-department-employee-rebekah-jones-granted-official-whistleblower-status/ I suppose that cite could be added if in doubt.Anastrophe (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Anastrophe. If a distinction must be made, can "the majority of media outlets" be phrased in Wikivoice without WP:OR? Do any secondary or tertiary sources say this? (The majority of outlets in the world have never even mentioned this case.) Llll5032 (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not particularly practiced in those nuances. What about 'Media outlets frequently refer to her as a "whistleblower". Or maybe more simply 'Jones is often referred to as a "whistleblower"'...? Anastrophe (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I think your last option satisfies WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, if it's without the quotation marks around whistleblower per MOS:SCARE. Llll5032 (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Wasn't intended as scare quotes, I just happened to write it that way at that moment. Updated proposed language. Anastrophe (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Anastrophe. In the proposed section two text ("questioned by sources that challenge the validity of her claims"), I think the sentence should say who the disagreeing sources are, per WP:V: "If there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues X, while Paul Jones maintains Y," followed by an inline citation." Because a yellow source disagrees with green sources, this should also take into account WP:BESTSOURCES. Llll5032 (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the NYT acknowledges the disagreements on her status, and is not a yellow source. Much of the article is built upon sources that aren't even rated for reliability. Maybe an alternative wording..."That perception is not universal, as the validity of her claims has been challenged." ?Anastrophe (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

That story says, "But Ms. Jones has not been universally embraced as a whistle-blower. Some critics have dismissed her lack of public health training. Others have been made uncomfortable by the attention she has sought"; "Her dashboard shows a higher total number of cases than the state’s official records because it includes the number of positive antibody tests, something the Department of Health and outside epidemiologists do not recommend"; and "State officials insist that her claims about hiding virus data are false. She was dismissed, they said, because she made unilateral decisions to modify the virus dashboard without approval". Any of these statements can be paraphrased, though the validity of her whistleblower status is challenged specifically by state officials in this source. Llll5032 (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure - but considering there's only the one statement in the article that she is characterized as a whistleblower often, wouldn't going into detail about the criticisms be undue? Anastrophe (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

We can describe a conflict the way a reliable WP:SECONDARY source does, if no source contradicts, per WP:BLPBALANCE. But I see your point about proportion. Llll5032 (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm updating the proposed text with my most recent offering, if only because it's more concise/direct. It's obviously still open to wordsmithing. Anastrophe (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be important to clarify the potential conflict of interest involved with state officials challenging her claims. If these are the main opponents, or indeed sole opponents, to Jones' complaint, then that should be noted specifically. 172.73.115.189 (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

How does "conflict of interest" enter into it? The state officials are obviously not the main or sole opponents, that's obvious from reading the sources. Anastrophe (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The state officials sound like the main opponents of the whistleblower status. WP:SUBSTANTIATE suggests that the other opponents be named too, if they are mentioned, because we should avoid "many people think" statements. Llll5032 (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't see that in the sources. They are one critic of the whistleblower status - again, in the colloquial usage - but not the only or 'main' by any stretch. Regardless, nowhere are we using 'many people think' statements. We use 'often' once; a fair description. And we do not quantify the opponents at all, simply making clear that the description isn't blanket or agreed upon by all. I'm trying to keep this neutral and weighted fairly; I think we've reached that point, which is why I submitted the formal request for edit. If there's interest, the section can be expanded, but right now, I believe it addresses the previous objections that the current version is a 'right-wing smear campaign' or that Jones is a beloved figure by everyone. Anastrophe (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

This is purely a meta comment, in terms of wordsmythery: each time I read (my own construct)" "as the validity of her claims has been challenged" my brain balks at 'has' and wants to convert to 'have'. I have a very strong intuitive sense regarding grammar/syntax &c, and my intuition is usually right - but in this case, it appears to be wrong. But is there a better way of phrasing it? I wonder if just purely simplifying it would accomplish the same; 'the validity of' is implicit in their having 'been challenged', so perhaps just "her claims have been challenged"....??? Anastrophe (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree, Anastrophe. Llll5032 (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Deletion

What is the purpose of this page? She got fired, got arrested, claimed to be a whistleblower, her claims were unsubstantiated or outright unfounded and the people she accused exonerated. There are other people running for office against Matt Gaetz who do not have Wiki pages. I'd suggest it's a candidate for deletion. Dgoldwas (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The individual gained national fame, accolades and recognition for her heroic whistleblower status, thereby generating many, many WP:RELIABLE SOURCES citations from the best media the U.S. has to offer. Wikipedia works off of those WP:RELIABLE SOURCES' credulous reports and those cannot be deleted now that the individual's claims have been found to be unsubstantiated or unfounded and those she accused were exonerated of any misconduct. That's just how Wikipedia works. Enjoy it! XavierItzm (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that's a silly reason to keep the page, but I get it. Meanwhile "TawCred" seems to be Rebekah (or someone close to her) trying her hand at controlling the narrative. Again. Dgoldwas (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

New IG report

Toa Nidhiki05, WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE would advise some caution about interpreting the new report without more than one RS. It should be made public soon with many more RS. Llll5032 (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

It's a non-sensational report by a top-tier news organization. What specifically is out of order with it? It's a single line that summarizes what the source said, in a neutral tone. Anastrophe (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it should be included. Some of the editing may have overstated the NBC report, and quoted it more than may be DUE, so I cut it back. Llll5032 (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

It's literally the inspector general's report. You're wanting to keep claims that she's a whisteblower from the office while not including the fact the office says everything she said was wrong and everyone she accused of wrongdoing did nothing wrong. There's no real excuse for this; you didn't "cut it back", you are blatantly misrepresenting a reliable source to keep outdated and inaccurate information highlighted. Toa Nidhiki05 03:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

You could be right about what the report says. But WP:BLP says an article must be "written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement", and that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Err on the side of caution. Also, WP:AGF. Llll5032 (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

And it’s almost certainly a BLP violation to regurgitate false claims about people without countering them. You wouldn’t want to have content on the page falsely accusing people of crimes and misconduct, right? Toa Nidhiki05 04:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

That is correct. BLP applies to every living person in an article. Llll5032 (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems like the correct thing to do, then, is to remove the claims that have been proven false or factually counter them with the report, and not to water down the page by acting like she’s a whistleblower but not mention how all her claims turned out to be incorrect. Toa Nidhiki05 04:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

We describe what the RS say (per WP:WEIGHT) ... and today many RS will describe the report. Llll5032 (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Based on the report and another look at the article, I will drop my cautioning about this version. It is probably all right. Llll5032 (talk) 05:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeeno, I may be be close to 3RR, so if you disagree with this edit, I will self-revert. Llll5032 (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I self reverted, for the reason above. Llll5032 (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The report is available here:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22039765/oig-report.pdf Dgoldwas (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I have done some recent editing to add a ref to an updated article that includes a version of the IG report, and adjusted some wording, including removing "all the", to match the secondary and primary sources. Llll5032 (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

As a new editor, please forgive/correct me if I get something procedurally wrong, but I added an edit which was properly rolled back by https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Llll5032&action=view due to the citation, and then I reinstated it with a corrected citation of the actual OIG report. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1090172994 Toa Nidhiki05 rolled it back again as “inappropriate to the lede” yet reinstated less accurate, less factual information about the exact same topic. The text as I included it is a far more complete and accurate summary of the OIG report, and should be appropriately replacing inaccurate text with a biased slant that was merely quoting a media article instead of the original source. If my citation was incorrectly formatted, I would appreciate assistance, but it is first-hand documentation and supports the information in my edit. TawCred (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

No, the OIG report doesn't back up the edit you made suggesting that the OIG report found:

"Jones’ allegations of being pressured to falsify COVID-19 data on the Department of Health website to be neither proven nor disproven. The allegation of falsifying new case positivity rates was determined to be unfounded, and the officials Jones accused of wrongdoing were found to have acted as Jones alleged, but were exonerated of wrongdoing because there were no policies specifically banning their actions."

Rather the OIG report made it quite clear that the evidence provided by Jones was insufficient to prove or disprove Allegations 1 and 2, not that her allegeations were "neither proven nor disproven". She didn't have sufficient evidence:

Allegation 1: Dr. Roberson directed the complainant and other DOH staff to falsify COVID-19 positivity rates. Unsubstantiated. Based upon an analysis of the available evidence, there is insufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove the alleged conduct, as described by the complainant, occurred.

Allegation 2: Ms. Coppola pressured the complainant to falsify COVID-19 positivity rates as directed by Dr. Roberson. Unsubstantiated. Based upon an analysis of the available evidence, there is insufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove the alleged conduct, as described by the complainant, occurred.

As for Allegation 3, you correctly described Jones' allegation as unfounded:

Allegation 3: At the direction of Dr. Roberson and Dr. Blackmore, the calculation of new case positivity was misrepresented on the DOH COVID-19 Data and Surveillance Dashboard. Unfounded. Based upon an analysis of the available evidence, the alleged conduct, as described by the complainant, did not occur.

Regarding Allegation 4, you editorialized by saying: "the officials Jones accused of wrongdoing were found to have acted as Jones alleged, but were exonerated of wrongdoing because there were no policies specifically banning their actions." This is editorializing because the accusation from Jones as alleged was not a violation of any governing directive. It's a policy disagreement, so the OIG found that the action took place but it wasn't improper. It was Jones' misunderstanding of why the "data hub" was taken down temporarily and then put back up.

Allegation 4: Dr. Roberson, Dr. Blackmore, and Mr. Pritchard directed the complainant to restrict access to underlying data that supported what appeared on the COVID-19 Data and Surveillance Dashboard. Exonerated. Based upon an analysis of the available evidence, the alleged conduct, as described by the complainant, occurred but was not found to be a violation of any governing directive. Dgoldwas (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

what was evidence did she provide and what was IG conclusion? public dont have access to IG report, dont need false charges in such important issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.34.142 (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The IG report is public. You can read it here. PDF Pages 1-28 are the OIG report. PDFs Pages 28-266 are her response. PDF Pages 267-268 are the OIG's rebuttal.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22041464/rebekah-jones-oig-report.pdf Dgoldwas (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Nikki Fried's role

There are couple mentions of Nikki Fried's reaction to the Jones situation. I'm a little confused why so much emphasis is placed on Fried's opinions. Does she head up Fried's department? Is she linked to the incident in some other way? Or is she just a random government person with an opinion? I think we should just create a "Reactions" section and push of all the Fried stuff into that. NickCT (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Nikki Fried is the Florida Commissioner of Agriculture and she is currently running for the Democratic nomination for Governor (to run against Gov. Ron DeSantis). I suspect the Fried references are due to Rebekah’s endorsement of her in this race. Anecdotally, people use Fried’s ties to Jones as a way to discredit her candidacy (rather than considering political reasons). Fried has steered clear of Jones lately, so I would probably consider this to be espousing a particular point of view related to the election. FrontFlip123 (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, one is supposed to go by the sources. The fact that so many sources cite Fried's assessments regarding the article's main subject indicate that Fried's had notable part of the main subject's notability. It is unseemly to hide Fried's comments as it smacks of censorship. XavierItzm (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Move? Merge?

I think this article should be moved and slightly re-scoped. Rebekah Jones is not notable as an individual; this is a WP:BLP1E and WP:RECENTISM situation. She probably meets the high-profile test due to her own actions, but I still think the real topic here isn't Rebekah Jones, it's the Florida Dept of Health controversy. She's a whistleblower, yes, but I don't think that whistleblowers should automatically get stand-alone pages, and I don't think Jones has reached the independently-notable-profile level that other whistleblowers have reached (like Manning). So I think this article should be moved, to something like Florida Dept of Health COVID controversy (or maybe "scandal", I'm not sure). In fact, an alternative to move might be to merge and put the content on some other Florida COVID page, maybe Florida Department of Health? I think it's really only the FDH's COVID numbers that are really notable here. Jones's dashboard isn't notable, the search warrant was just a news cycle thing, and she is not notable as a person. What do others think? Levivich <sup>harass</sup>/<sub>hound</sub> 18:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Weak support move to Florida Dept of Health controversy or some other similar title. The WP:BLP1E and WP:RECENTISM rationales are reasonable. Plus, I don't know how we keep this subject's article without running into a WP:BLP nightmare over the subject's chequered past. My support is only weak b/c I think she might meet notability criteria. NickCT (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Strongly support move to different page This article should be part of the Florida Covid 19 page as Ms. Jones isn't a notable person but seems to have built a level of notoriety through self-promotion, etc. I'm researching how she was named to be a speaker at an event of the AAG but was removed after they decided against her importance. The controversy around her notoriety alone seems to warrant moving the article for now. DharmaDrummer (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

It's been six months so I'd like to raise this again and solicit input from any new page watchers. Levivich <sup>harass</sup>/<sub>hound</sub> 23:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Support move Agree with WP:BLP1E, the firing section seems the most important here. The rest (Early life, prior lawsuits) is just background information included in sources covering the firing; there is little to back up its importance. The subsequent police raid can be included, but shortened. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 00:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Support move I agree with DharmaDrummer in that the relevant parts of this article belong in COVID-19 pandemic in Florida. More specifically, I think that the Timeline section already contains what is needed about this topic. This article is becoming documentation about lawsuits and legal issues, and it sounds like it will just become more so as time goes on. Sudopudge (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep Page As Is The individual has gained national recognition for her efforts and initiatives. For example, she is one of "Fortune magazine's 40 Under 40"; she is a Forbes "Technology Person of the Year"; she is a Democrat candidate for Florida's 1st Congressional District. XavierItzm (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Matt Gaetz

Why is her apparent upcoming electoral challenge to Matt Gaetz mentioned in a reference below the article, but nowhere mentioned in the actual text of the current version of this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

She doesn’t live in Florida. Toa Nidhiki05 01:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

She lives in Florida but she is not running against Matt Gaetz until she wins the primary against Peggy Schiller. So technically there is no challenge to Gaetz until after the primary in August. Dgoldwas (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Bias

This page seems biased against the person that it is about. I request that the neutrality of the article be looked at. Reading through this talk page seems to support my beliefs.

216.138.61.221 (talk) 04:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Does seemed to be biased. Significant news came out on the day changes were first made by the one user. Since then additions/deletions/editing has been done frequently by them in a very lopsided manner. Place on Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Hope they see it was reverted and follow up with the locking (and update the current/reverted page). Article reverted to time before it started to be significantly changed by one user - brute force: needs updating

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons : "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. 73.235.73.237 (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Fixed biased lead but don’t agree the rest of it is You Make Me Fade (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

It is not an improvement to reintroduce allegations which have since then either been refuted or substantiated; the details are, and belong in, the body. The lead is a summary, and it accurately reflects the sources as they currently describe the matters involved. I've reverted the edits. Substantial changes to lead should be discussed here to find consensus, first. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Why did you rollback all edits ? I deleted the bday, middle name and court doc source again. You Make Me Fade (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Because you removed sourced material without any rationale for why. What is your rationale for removing it? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 03:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The rationale for removing bday and middle name was that it came from a court doc which is public record and primary source. BLP:BLPPRIVACY BLP:PRIMARY WP:DOB In summary I put that it was court doc source.

“ Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. ”

You Make Me Fade (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I came from Mudge’s bio and I think it reflects his bio better then hers.

Issues:

1. Her job specialty is not notable and unnecessary in lead.

2. Reliable sources call her data scientist.

3. The firing is the biggest part of the bio but not even a whole sentence in current lead. The seriousness of her accusations, her deception and incompetence, the whistleblower complaint and forgery, the police raid and suspended prosecution with guilt admitting are not reflecting there.

4. The Forbes honor is notable and important aspect in the firing and complaints. The alt dashboard got her the honor but ignoring epidemiologists for wrong or conspiracy purpose. You Make Me Fade (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what "Mudge's bio" is. There are seventeen 'Mudge' entries on the disambig page. However - that's all immaterial. We can't compare two different BLP's about two different people as a rationale for which is "better". re 1, her job specialty is standard fare for a BLP. On what basis do you suggest it's not notable? It was in the performance of her job that her entire notability arose. re 2. they do, and they have been shown to be wrong, via actual information that is reliable. re 3, it is, and it is covered in the body of the article, where the details belong. re 4, how so is not-particularly-notable 'honor' from Forbes an important aspect in her firing? I see a lot of synthesis as rationales, little in the way of sources. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 03:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Mudge is the Twitter whistleblower. I just meant when I read his bio the lead summarize the body good with the weight and notability matching expectation. Rebekah’s is like a twisty and turns drama.

Her job specialty is not notable and isn’t why she is. I’ve read like 40 articles at least and not seen it once. What I seen is her job as the manager of GIS team not mentioning about hurricane tracking. Also them call to her as data scientist. If that is wrong why is it in her info box? Source please. It’s standard to cover what reliable second sources say, not to put their job specialty instead.

Re:3 it should be summarized in the lead too. It is majority of content about her.

The honor from Forbes is notable because it was the inaugural award and widely covered. She won the award for her work on the FL dashboard (notable) and then her alt dashboard (notable). She built it after she was fired, because she was fired, and modeled the data the way she believed was correct which is same as why she got herself fired. The deviations got criticized by epidemiologists and academics and she got into fights on twitter over it. (Notable). She went against DOH recommendations. (notable)

All of this is in the sources, but trying to link them here gives me an error.

You Make Me Fade (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Sourcings

“ The data scientist responsible for Florida’s highly praised Covid-19 tracking dashboard came to national attention in December after the police raided her home … Fired in May from the state’s Department of Health for what she says was a refusal to manipulate data, Rebekah Jones launched an independent Covid-19 tracking dashboard ”

“ On May 18, Jones was fired from her job. An official statement from the Florida DOH said it was for “insubordination” and that Jones had modified the dashboard without input or approval from the epidemiological team or her supervisors. But she tells a different story: “I was fired for refusing to manipulate data to drum up support for the governor’s plan to reopen.” The Friday before, she’d asked her boss how to submit an anonymous whistleblower complaint raising alarm about the state’s lies, she says. Her termination took place Monday morning before she got the chance. … She’s … running her own independent Florida COVID-19 dashboard, Florida COVID Action, which she started last June after being fired. ”

“ Jones’ veracity had been frayed by a certain recklessness on Twitter, where she frequently wages public fights with academics, journalists and public officials. Her tendency to tweet first and fact check later led Jones to occasionally delete posts like about cases disappearing after she said she decided she didn’t have enough context. … she has been accused of confusing antibody and antigen tests and inaccurately describing how New York counted COVID-19 deaths in conversations Jones said were misconstrued. … The official reason for Jones’ dismissal began with an email from a Herald reporter on May 4, 2020. Reporters were inquiring about something they’d seen in DOH’s published data: a variable that showed illnesses dating back into late December 2019 and evidence of community spread potentially months earlier than previously reported. … about the COVID Open Data hub, where the Herald had gotten the “case line” file of de-identified individual cases containing limited demographic information as well as dates associated with each case. …. Blackmore said in her statement that’s when she gave the order — “take it down.” “This is the wrong call,” Jones wrote … “I had great concerns these could be used to violate patients’ privacy,” Blackmore said in her statement in the whistleblower case. “I also had great concerns about external users manipulating Florida data without guidance on the strengths and limitations of these data.” … The data was restored May 5, but without the variable that the Herald had asked about. Eventually that was fully restored May 6, and remains available through the DOH dashboard. she (Jones) was accused of publishing “unauthorized” data. … to Jones’ termination … Curry listed three reasons: the confusion around the case line data, which he said he did not think was intentional, along with two other instances where he said he had verbally reprimanded Jones for publishing a blog post analyzing COVID data and commenting on Facebook about data used on the dashboard … “She was fired when it became evident, based on feedback from dashboard users responding to the new management team, that Rebekah had extensive, unauthorized, communication with dashboard users, including reporters, about the data on the dashboard and the case-line data,” Blackmore’s statement said. … She said she had concerns about some data definitions that limited the scope of what was being measured and didn’t condone deleting or hiding published data. But mostly, she said, “They made policy decisions that were completely departed from all of the data.” ”

“ Jones, who had worked as a geographic information systems manager, said she objected to what she considered unethical requests from her supervisors to change the state’s coronavirus data dashboard. For instance, she claims, she was asked to undercount infections and over-count the number of people tested. (Officials have denied this.)

After her dismissal, Jones launched her own data portal, advertising it as a transparent and independent alternative.

”

You Make Me Fade (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Rebekah needs to stop sockpuppeting AGAIN and trying to edit her own Wikipedia. 50.88.232.197 (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I’m not Rebekah. You Make Me Fade (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Data Scientist contention

Many reversions of title of Data Scientist. We say what the reliable sources say.

• [1] CNN
• [2] npr
• [3] New York Times
• [4] Financial Times
• [5] Washington Post
• [6] The Cut
• [7] TIME
• [8] Forbes

No justifiable reason for deleting so far.

• [9] Rebekah has said repeatedly that she is NOT a data scientist. https://twitter.com/GeoRebekah/status/1341098465061990400
• [10] Added links, corrected incorrect information, linked to tweet where Jones says plainly that she is not a data scientist, but only a geographer. clarified that she has never presented any data she claims to have
• [11] they have been shown to be wrong, via actual information that is reliable

Reason to believe accuracy.

• [12] The role includes analysis of data, design of databases and use of this data in other GIS applications ... Collect data from various sources to populate geographical databases
• [13] In climate science, geospatial analysts will examine changes to the landscape along with the environmental shift. They will look for changes in the biological makeup of a site, signs of the water table, evidence of flooding or drought and how the pollen record compares between now and the past. In resource planning, conservation and disaster relief, they will look at how the record looks now for effective management, to discover potential problems and plan for the future.
• [14] Leverage the power of spatial analysis and data science on demand and at scale with ArcGIS.
• [15] Spatial data science is a subset of data science. It’s where data science intersects with GIS with a key focus on geospatial data and new computing techniques. Location matters in data science using statistical computing to access, manipulate, explore, and visualize data.

Rebekah Jones does not wish to be called a data scientist, but it is what reliable sourcing calls her and it is verifiable and accurate. A geospatial information scientist is a type of data scientist. This should not be contentious or disputed. You Make Me Fade (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The whistleblower section needs to 1) exist 2) be clear.

Currently this article appears to be massaged by DeSantis' people to hide the facts about what went on. CrickedBack (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Blatant Right-Wing Bias Appears Rampant in Edits

There appears to be general consensus that she is a whistleblower however, there is currently a sort-of war ongoing on this page over whether to consider her of this status. There have also been attempts to hide her campaign for congress against Matt Gaetz. The only two sources cited to dispute her status as a whistleblower are a New York Times piece which makes passing mention that "some" (it isn't clear who these "some" are) disagree with her classification as a whistleblower, and a National Review piece written by an opinion columnist with a history of writing pro-DeSantis pieces in the same publication. The overwhelming majority of publications which dispute her status as a whistleblower are right-wing opinion pieces (as in the case of the National Review article cited in the top paragraph, which, IMO, doesn't meet the standards for Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons) or outright political attack pieces published by Governor DeSantis' office directly.

It should be clear that this campaign to discredit Rebekah Jones as a whistleblower is entirely one-sided, and is in no way supported by reliable sources. It is potentially libelous to make unsupported claims about this person, and doing so is in direct violation of Wikipedia's policies on the biographies of living persons.

Once again, I think the fact that this new 'campaign' by a single-use anonymous IP user, with no previous edit history on Wikipedia (yet clear capable of using wiki markup etc like an experienced user), is suspect. Blah blah right wing blah blah de santis blah blah. If you can't contain your own political biases while ostensibly attempting to gain consensus for your outlier POV, then perhaps you should avoid attempting to edit articles that may be contentious. As has been described elsewhere, there are two forms or meanings for 'whistleblower'. The first use goes back a hundred years, as a colloquial term. The second is a very recent use to ascribe formal legal status to those the State believes to fit their definition of "whistleblower". Until all of the legal wranglings and investigations swirling around Jones are closer to completion or indeed completed, it's best to stick to the historical understanding of the term, which carries far more weight than a bureaucratic designation. That, however, is merely my opinion. So far, attempts continue to be made (primarily by single-use anon accounts such as this) and consensus to change it not found. Please give it a rest; time will tell the full story. Anastrophe (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the claim that the 'campaign against Matt Gaetz' is being supressed, balderdash. She made the claim, retracted by saying essentially 'well maybe'. Is there a campaign website? A formal filing with the state? Absent reliable sources confirming those and other things, this is merely more bloviation from Jones. If Jones were to say tomorrow that she's flying to the moon, would that deserve coverage? Not likely. Not every word an individual utters is notable for wikipedia. Anastrophe (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, Jones does not live in Florida - she lives in Maryland. It would be illegal for her to run for Congress in a state she doesn't live in. Toa Nidhiki05 00:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

From what I gather, she still retains her Florida resident status; I don't think she's moved to Maryland permanently, at least not yet. But whatever the case, the supposed run against Matt Gaetz is just a distraction. Anastrophe (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Don't try to derail this page with baseless allegations against the editors you don't like. The admins/mods can check. This IP should not be used by any registered user, and I have never registered an account on Wikipedia before. I've read over your edits to the talk page, and the only one being contentious here is you. Rhetorically charged language appears to be the bulk of your posts on this page, and you are almost exclusively the sole proponent of refusing to recognize Ms. Jones as a whistleblower. If you would like to provide reliable sources to support your claim, do so. Until then, your claim is not supported by sources which meet Wikipedia's policies on the biographies of living persons, and as such, should not be displayed on the official page.

I will note that I have updated the BLP to better/more fully characterize the status regarding 'whistleblower' already. Anastrophe (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

There's already a discussion above re: whistleblower or not: [16]. The NYT piece is crucial because the other articles are local reporting, which can be of variable quality and reliability, or has known bias like NR. The fact is that much of this Jones stuff is quite murky, and hasn't really gotten significant coverage lately. I think the whistleblower part of the lede is fine as is -- it tries to strike a balance and doesn't take a stance. Hardly "right wing". DrIdiot (talk) 07:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

If the article top says that her claims are disputed, should it specify who is disputing the claims? Llll5032 (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The only sources which go into any detail about the "dispute" regarding her status as a whistleblower are right-wing opinion publications like the New York Post and the National Review. The NYT article makes passing mention at "some" challenging the classification, but it isn't clarified who these people are or why they object. Aside from this one line in this one NYT article, all other sources objecting to (or referencing objections to) her status as a whistleblower are right-wing publications. There isn't sufficient sourcing on this to justify "striking a balance" because the bulk of the objections are based on conjecture, and use loaded or rhetorical language to convey their message. I will repeat my previous concern that there are no reliable, unbiased sources which provide sufficient objections to her classification as a whistleblower so as to cast aspersions upon her character in her official Wikipedia page.

Update: it's behind a paywall (free registration is an option) but this article by the Miami Herald seems to be the most detailed reporting on Rebekah Jones' whistleblowing activities to date.

•  WP:AGF please. Llll5032 (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

True indeed. I took the bait, and will strike my less charitable commentary. Anastrophe (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

An assumption is what you start with. At some point assumptions should be discarded with the evidence is strong enough. CrickedBack (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary" CrickedBack (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

References