This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Women in Red: #1day1woman (2020) This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2020. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles Biography: Science and Academia B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group. COVID-19 B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Florida B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women scientists B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Geography B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Geography To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles. Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes Map : See Wikipedia requested maps Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places Stubs : See Geography stubs United States: Mississippi B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Mississippi.

	Archives: 1, 2, 3
	This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

There appears to be general consensus that she is a whistleblower^{[1][2][3][4][5]}Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). 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^{[6][7][8][9][10]}. The overwhelming majority of publications which dispute her status as a whistleblower are right-wing opinion pieces^{[11][12][13][14]} (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.^[15]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There's already a discussion above re: whistleblower or not: [1]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^[16] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

”

^[1]

“

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.

”

^[2]

“

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.”

”

^[3]

“

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.

”

^[4] You Make Me Fade (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

No justifiable reason for deleting so far.

• [10] Rebekah has said repeatedly that she is NOT a data scientist. https://twitter.com/GeoRebekah/status/1341098465061990400
• [11] 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
• [12] they have been shown to be wrong, via actual information that is reliable

Reason to believe accuracy.

• [13] 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
• [14] 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.
• [15] Leverage the power of spatial analysis and data science on demand and at scale with ArcGIS.
• [16] 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)[reply]

The now-blocked single-purpose and sockpuppet account User:You_Make_Me_Fade (block link, contributions) has been responsible 39 of the 76 revisions to this page since their account was created in January. This has transformed the article in a clear direction of bias concerning details that had already been hashed out in the talk page, before User:You_Make_Me_Fade's edits. The List of whistleblowers article has already been manually reverted to undo related changes by the same user. I'll do the same to this page when I get the chance. Sudopudge (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content isn't usually reverted for bans even if it's suspected socking. A single use ip who axed whistleblowers who were turned into movies and tv but not 6 paragraphs about some obscure environmental hazard from the 70s is probably not a rubric for good edits, either. 24.16.22.248 (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:You_Make_Me_Fade is responsible for 57.9% of the article currently, with other editors' additions interspersed, of course. I don't even know how to begin manually reverting that.Sudopudge (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taking pains to emphasize that I'm neither defending nor resisting the changes made by the user, I think it's important to keep any statistical analysis of added content in context, to wit, if you compare the last revision before that user's contributions, up to that user's last contributions, you will see that a significant proportion of the added text is in the form of either:

1. Quotes added to citations - which in themselves don't alter the article body presented to readers, for the most part, and
2. the insertion of archive.org cite rescue/prevention of link rot, which insertions involve a fair amount of text in presenting them appropriately.

To be clear: I haven't analyzed precisely who made the additions of quotes or the link-rot preventing cite modifications, but they are likely by the person mentioned. So, I think we can't jump to many conclusions about bias without a pretty thorough sifting through of all of the changes. And that, right there, is the biggest challenge, because, to put it colloquially, there are a metric- shite-ton of edits in that interval to go through. I think the first and "easiest" matter is to trim down, or entirely remove, the "quote" additions, which I think are generally reserved for ensuring for deeper readers that the article properly reflects material that is nuanced or complicated. Most of them seem unnecessary. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've started clearing out some of the cite quotes. They are highly repetitious and add nothing to the article; the cites exist so that readers can verify. They add little but bulk to the page without adding value. There's also a lot of over-citation, where one or two cites would be more than adequate. Likewise, many of the cites are used throughout the article - in those cases, they should be made into named cites, so that the entire cite doesn't have to be repeated - which also adds bulk to the page without adding value. There's too much here for me to devote all my time to culling this stuff, so assistance would be appreciated. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all the remaining cite quotes, which culled a ton of useless, invisible-to-regular-readers text. My understanding is that a cite quote is generally only needed where there's some question or dispute about exactly the content within a source that is relevant to what the article content describes. Pretty much all of the cite quotes removed were of no value. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know they're a sockpuppet and a single purpose account? I thought you were bluelinking to evidence, but you just linked to the pages for WP:SOCKPUPPET and WP:SPA?" What is the bias exactly? The RS in that user's edits seems to be okay. Kire1975 (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sudopudge clearly linked to the blocklist entry. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 07:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's well-sourced here, here, here, here and here, but there are several different viewpoints about it. It could be considered very contentious, but would not including it count as censorship? Kire1975 (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the arrest involved the son alone I don't think it should be included since the son is not notable. However, Jones -- who is notable -- is inseparably entangled with this episode due to the fact she was co-habiting with the son, was involved in transferring him to the police, and has publicly commented about it. Given the amount of coverage it's received I think, therefore, it is reasonable to include in a "personal life" section. I don't think it's appropriate to identify the son by name per the spirit (though maybe not the letter) of WP:BLPNAME. IOW, maybe we can limit it to saying "Jones' son" instead of "John Dow, Jones' son". I'm also not certain it would be appropriate to list his medical conditions, including autism or anything else. Chetsford (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the last two articles linked above (Newsweek and Tallahassee Democrat/Politifact), Matt Gaetz, her opponent last year, was mocking her 12 year old autistic son who was caught in an unflattering photo at her merchandise table. Kire1975 (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEWSWEEK WP:AVOIDVICTIM WP:NPF WP:MINORS

She created a spectacle so it's notable because of her. Keep it related to her and her role. Minimize contention and inclusion of him. 24.16.22.248 (talk) 05:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Challenging neutrality and accuracy. They weren’t tweets and the current wording makes it sound like the police made it look like he wrote messages that weren’t his.

Change from: The Miami Herald reports that a redacted version of the warrant circulated by authorities withheld from the press that the disputed tweets were from two different accounts and that the actual threats came only from the one claimed by Jones to not belong to her son.

To: The Miami Herald obtained the unredacted warrant obtained in March, after students reported the threats to authorities. The search warrant contained two different usernames without disclosing how they were linked to her son. Jones claims that the account that wrote the threats does not belong to her son. 63.239.21.226 (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done interstatefive  22:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per NBC: Those chat messages were sent from a different user name. The arrest report appeared to address the name discrepancy saying: "It should be noted Snapchat uses a name to id the account to other people and the actual user name." [17] 24.16.22.248 (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

id the account to other people? That's as clear as mud. Kire1975 (talk) 10:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's exactly what it says. Snapchat uses display names and usernames. [18] 24.16.22.248 (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Except that that's not what it says. That's your interpretation of what it means. It is an exceptionally poorly written statement. 'name' 'id' 'account' 'other people' 'user' 'name'. I'm with Kire1975, except that it's worse than mud, it's word soup. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is the way snap chat works. A "display name" is the name that id's the account to other people. [19] 24.16.22.248 (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And that is, literally, not how the statement is worded. Which is what we've pointed out. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is literally worded to describe a concept which Snapchat calls display name. Which is why I cited Vice, so it would not be misinterpreted as OR. Cheers. Adding your Display Name on Snapchat is a great way to help friends recognize you. Snapchatters who have you in their phonebook may see the name they've saved you as in their phone. 24.16.22.248 (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to official snapchat source above, Your username can only be changed once a year. Since he changed the username in January, before the threats were made, that contradicts the statement on the arrest report even more. Kire1975 (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. It's not difficult to maintain more than one account on a platform. The bottom line is that this is a 'developing' situation, and neither we nor the press have all the information. So we shouldn't speculate beyond what is available. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is OR. There was only one account. This is not speculation. Per Vice [20]:

Police documents and warrant service reports, however, suggest that multiple students at her son’s former middle school reported him to teachers because they were worried he would shoot up the school.

Snapchat messages obtained by the police as part of a search warrant do indeed return memes that joke about school shootings sent by her son. But they also show legitimately concerning messages he allegedly sent that appear to be specific threats against a specific middle school.

Jones has tweeted that she believes her son did not send these messages—which, again, were obtained directly from Snapchat by the police and traced to the same account that posted the memes... cited a Miami Herald article

This appears, though, to be a misreading of the unredacted police report by Jones and by the Herald, and also a misunderstanding of how Snapchat works.

On Snapchat, users are able to have a display name and a username. A user can change their display name at any time, but the username will stay the same. The police report does not mention multiple accounts; it simply states what the display name was and what the username was. The memes and threatening direct messages came from the same account, according to the warrant service documents. Jillian Durkin, a spokesperson for the Santa Rosa Sheriff’s Office, told Motherboard: “I can confirm that per our investigation, there was only ONE account.”

The police report does not rely only on the content of the messages. Police also spoke to a 12-year-old girl who identified Jones’s son’s accounts and stated that had made threats to her on both Discord and Snapchat. The Snapchat records show that she was the recipient of some of the messages... Several of the Snapchat messages threatening to shoot up the school and named in the warrant service documents were sent to her. 24.16.22.248 (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kire1975 Edits like this reflect an opinion about this matter coming through as bias: [21] The edit summary says "CE", so the edit should be basic fixes WP:CE. Discover implies a degree of certainty that the source did not convey. They reported an unexplained discrepancy. They reported that students tied the threats to him in March. The removal left the impression that the threats were not tied to him. This same sentiment was indicated in this edit summary. [22] WP:SUMMARYNO Edited per comment on talk page challenging civility. 24.16.22.248 (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Miami Herald source leaves the impression that the threats were not tied to him. Kire1975 (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interpretation, it's not what the source says. This is why WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS and WP:TALKDONTREVERT are good rules of thumb, especially when adding or removing recent content from talk pages. The source says the warrant appeared to contain two usernames and authorities did not say how they linked them to one account. It says the boy was tied to the threats in March when students reported the messages. It offers the Jones' dispute on the perceived username discrepancy and shares that her son acknowledged 2 memes tied to the other listed username. [23] Condensed, word-for-word:

The threats reportedly were made during a series of conversations on Snapchat and Discord, an instant messaging social platform, beginning around Feb. 1. They were brought to the attention of law enforcement authorities by other teens in March. The teens showed deputies screenshots of memes shared by Jones’ son on Snapchat, where they said the boy had also threatened to shoot up his former middle school the week before spring break, but then said he later changed his mind, according to the arrest warrant. The boy was interviewed by sheriff’s deputies on March 23 and shown the memes, which he acknowledged sharing, the report said.

An unredacted version of the warrant, obtained by the Herald, shows the threatening messages were sent by a username that was different than the one Jones’ son used to send the memes. The document does not say how authorities determined both usernames are linked to the same account. Jones provided a screenshot of her son’s account, which showed he changed to his current username in January, before the threats were made. She said he has never used the handle associated with the threatening messages. 24.16.22.248 (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anastrophe Can you please fix this portion per Vice and NBC so it is accurate and neutral, per policy? 24.16.22.248 (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one account referenced by police. This was confirmed with witness testimony, police documents, public statements, and the evidence obtained from Snapchat. The search warrant contained the evidence needed for probable cause to conduct the search.

From: The Miami Herald obtained the unredacted warrant obtained in March, after students reported the threats to authorities. The search warrant contained two different usernames without disclosing how they were linked to her son. Jones claims that the account that wrote the threats does not belong to her son.

To: Jones tweeted that "[police] specifically hid [that the] messages sent came [sic] from an account that was NOT my son's" which was erroneously corroborated by the Miami Herald. Vice remarked on the error and verified the threats and memes in the Snapchat records obtained by police were from single account.[24][25][26]

Removed request to reorder since it was "unreadable" and "incomprehensible". 24.16.22.248 (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC) 24.16.22.248 (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a wholesale rewrite of all of the existing content on this matter. I believe it's too broad an 'ask'. But we can wait for other user input. I would suggest discussing changes rather than requesting a blanket rewrite. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make heads or tails of this totally unreadable and incomprehensible post. What is the request? What is the matter? What is the context? The IP editor needs to consider they are writing for an audience, not for their roommate. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, is it necessary to make a personal dig at the user? I recall that we are be 'welcoming' and 'civil'. We don't have to bend over backwards to be friendly, but as a first communication with the user, this seems unnecessary personalized. Furthermore, I understand what IP editor wrote. It's not unreadable and incomprehensible, and it is formatted properly as an edit request.

Secondly, you blanked the content in the article, with inspecific claims that it may be 'inappropriate'. Since you removed the content, can you start a discussion, and explain your rationale? Your edit summary was hostile and threatening; I don't think that this is appropriate behavior for an administrator. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the other part of my post but it seems you removed it all while we build consensus which makes sense. Thank you. 24.16.22.248 (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Drmies removed all content regarding a widely reported matter concerning Jones's tweets about her son's arrest, and their inconsistency with facts as reported in reliable sources. The edit summary accompanying the removal was threatening, without citing a specific policy basis for the blanking. Non-administrator editors rarely get away with blanking content then threatening editors if they restore it. I'd like to get some clarity from the administrator on this matter. The content is specific to the public actions of the subject of this BLP. Her son is not named either here or in reliable sources. What's your policy basis for both the blanking and the threats? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to open a discussion about BLP matters pertaining to a 13-yr old child on BLPN. You've been here long enough to know that we should err on the side of caution, and that this talk about "threats" is very immature. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"very immature". Again, with the personalizations. If I had blanked the content, and warned users that if they restored it the article would be locked, I'd likely have been sanctioned. Let me ask: If I were to restore the material you blanked, right now, what would the consequences be? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having carefully extricated my head from my arse and applied some copium, I agree with the blanking - and frankly think the page should be fully protected for a couple of days anyway, as the polarizing nature of the subject of this BLP is likely to bring about others who would add new interpretations of the events without reviewing these discussions. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with the blanking. WP:MINORS WP:NPF WP:BLPCRIME WP:LPI WP:BLPPRIVACY

Age is not a DOB, but it is considered personal information. (Non-personal ages are "fuzzy" is 10-20, adolescent, teenager, minor).

Presumption in favor of privacy

...exercise restraint and include only material relevant to notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources.

We should build a consensus of what is appropriate to include, especially because we are talking about a minor. 24.16.22.248 (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Florida, a minor's information is not private if they are charged with a felony, as is the case here. More information is here: https://ejdirga.com/orlando-criminal-attorney/florida-expungement-lawyer/expungement-options/juvenile_expungement/juvenile-records/ Dgoldwas (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but it's immaterial in terms of what's under dispute here, I'd say. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a public record. 2601:600:9B7F:844E:F9A9:12C2:1FF:401B (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A highly left-wing news source, Vice, reported [27] that Jones' claims are blatantly false and that her son threatened to shoot up a school, hence he was arrested. Jones accused DeSantis of kidnapping her son, among other conspiracy theories which she choose to spread wildly after his arrest. Considering how she made the story public and decided to share it to numerous nationwide outlets, I don't understand how this isn't notable for this article. I think the article merits some inclusion of how Jones is a conspiracy theorist considering various documented claims spread by her that were blatantly false (some examples can be found in a right-wing article [28] or a left-wing one [29], and this story is a place to start. Bill Williams 00:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TWEET source

Remove: On December 8, 2022, it was announced that Jones would be hosting a new podcast, "Miss Informational" on Big Mouth Media, a new venture by former congressional candidate Cindy Banyai. 24.16.22.248 (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done 73.28.38.149 (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m aware that the Florida's Office of Inspector General exonerated the state health officials, but is it not worth mentioning that the Florida State Auditor released a report stating that the data from Florida’s Merlin COVID systems “did not appear complete or contained anomalies that would limit the accuracy and usefulness of reported information”? This seems worth noting, as it would lend some credibility to Jones’s claims.

https://flauditor.gov/pages/pdf_files/2022-200.pdf Page 5, listed as Finding 2 2603:7000:2402:3543:61BA:D328:3DE6:ABB (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, but I suspect that could be considered analysis of a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and WP:OR. It it's mentioned in a secondary source somewhere, I would say allow it. Kire1975 (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She did not have access to Merlin so this is not related to Jones. [30] 2605:B100:53D:11:15A4:49B4:B380:4DE4 (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]