Talk:Rebekah Jones

Connected contributor

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

@NedFausa: Thanks for adding the connected contributor note. However, I don't agree with the inclusion of the COI template -- User:Georebekah is not a 'major' contributor to the article; that user mainly added a photo, additional alma maters, and the phrase "whistle-blower" (which is a fine descriptor also used by most articles in major media). ␄ –Nucleosynth (t c) 23:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nucleosynth: User:Georebekah is responsible for 25.45% of the total edits made to Rebekah Jones. That makes User:Georebekah a major contributor. NedFausa (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: Okay, but most of those edits were tiny, and if you look at them, many of them were formatting tweaks to the same actual content. The high percentage is due to the low number of total edits of the page itself. Moreover, most of the actual content was contributed by @Jane023: (40%), @KittenKlub: (21%), and User:2601:4C1:4000:3A80:D055:280C:1BDA:B987 (18%) -- all numbers reported by mw:Who Wrote That?. I really don't think that this qualifies as "major" contributions by the subject in question. ␄ –Nucleosynth (t c) 23:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nucleosynth: User:Georebekah is ranked #4 among Top 10 by added text, accounting for 10.2%—compared to your own 3.3%. You are not a major contributor. User:Georebekah is. NedFausa (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't understand how it's relevant whether or not I'm a major contributor -- I was editing the page at the same time and watched most of the diffs happen.

The xtools page also doesn't count which of the edits have already been reverted (some have), and which edits were self-overlapping (most were). It's not a reliable metric here.

I think it's more productive to look at the actual diffs in question (there's not that many). Looking at them, I don't see any edits which seem like a COI. ␄ –Nucleosynth (t c) 23:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa @Nucleosynth: Using percent as a number of edits is grossly misleading. I didn't know how to use the formatting for the photo I provided so I changed it like five times. Again, I only discovered this page TODAY.

I started this page and rereading it I see that it mostly follows what I orignally wrote, so I consider myself still the major contributor to the article. I hereby confirm that I still live in the same non-US country where I have been editing English Wikipedia since 2006. No relation to the subject, so removing the tl. Jane (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Jane023: COI refers to A major contributor to this article, not to THE major contributor. And this section of the talk page makes clear that the connected contributor in question is User:Georebekah, not you. NedFausa (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Fine, be stubborn about it and count the bits and bytes. As I previously stated as the page-creator, I do not see major changes, period. Jane (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Jane023: As a respected wikipedia editor, why did you create a reference that clearly did not list all of the presenters/ authors reported by Esri in the link within your reference?

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Rebekah Jones Photo.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

This is my photo. I took it, I own it. FSU has never used it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4C1:4000:3A80:25B3:1C8F:F537:D661 (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the ever helpful User:NedFausa nominated it for deletion. I entered an undeletion request you can follow here (might take weeks for an answer): c:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Rebekah_Jones_Photo.jpg. Jane (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

While we await undeletion of the image about which Rebekah Jones tweeted: Dare I say... I kinda look hot on my Wikipedia page, why not insert a different image of our photogenic BLP subject? I don't understand the fixation on a single picture whose copyright is in question. The ever helpful NedFausa (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Failed verification (Hurricane Michael)

With this edit, Jane023 removed the {Failed verification} template following a reference that ostensibly supports the claim that Rebekah Jones led the agency's geospatial response during Hurricane Michael. "I easily verified this reference," wrote Jane023 in her edit summary, "by looking it up on the link provided." For convenience, here is the link provided. When I clicked that link, I searched for and found a listing for Florida Department of Health's Hurricane Michael GIS Response by Parker Hinson and Rebekah Jones. However, unlike some of the other 395 user presentations, the listing for Hinson and Jones has no PDF attached for downloading their presentation. If it reports that Rebekah Jones led the agency's geospatial response during Hurricane Michael, one must be able to actually see the paper to verify her claim. A one-line tabular listing simply does not suffice. The {Failed verification} template must accordingly be restored until Jane023 can explain how to locate and access the missing PDF. NedFausa (talk) 06:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact that she presented is enough to verify the sentence fragment which states she led the effort. Titles follow actions, not the other way around. Jane (talk) 06:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

She was not employed as FDOH's GIS manager during Hurricane Michael, and therefore could not have led the agency's response. She did not become GIS manager until over a year later. She is also not first author of the Hurricane Michael Response presentation. Furthermore, assisting in providing an overview of an agency's response in no way verifies you led said response, especially if not employed in the role which would have done so at that time. More evidence is needed to verify the claim. Norasnowx —Preceding undated comment added 09:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what her title was at the time she led a response to the Hurricane. The precise role she played is completely irrelevant to the simple fact she played a significant role in the tracking of the hurricane. Please stop your insistance on the definition of a hurricane response leader. Jane (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, the statement says she 'led the AGENCY'S response' to the hurricanes WHILE she was gis manager. LEADING an AGENCY'S response has a much different implication than PLAYING A ROLE (as you state) in an agency's response. The whole sentence regarding what she did as GIS manager needs to be re-written or the portion about Hurricane Michael and Hurricane Dorian removed until verification is provided. Also, there are numerous data scientists throughout the entire state of Florida who track hurricanes. Tracking hurricanes and/or presenting a storymap with which you are second author in no way is indicative of leading an entire agency's geospatial response, rather that you participated in that agency's response. Furthermore, both hurricanes occurred before she was GIS manager, so her participation in the agency's hurricane response should be mentioned in the sentence prior. Norasnowx

@Jane023: Please desist from edit warring at the Rebekah Jones Wikipedia page, as you did here, and explain how to locate and access the PDF absent from the Florida Department of Health's listing for Hurricane Michael GIS Response by Parker Hinson and Rebekah Jones—or provide an alternative WP:RS to support your claim that Rebekah Jones led the agency's geospatial response during Hurricane Michael. Your disruptive editing reflects poorly on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History and whatever other projects you are associated with. NedFausa (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

On 7 July 2020, Lent added a reference to the end of the lead's third sentence, which is what we are discussing in this talk page section. It cites a June 12, 2020 post by an author identified only as GISUSER—the name of the website. The post contains one paragraph relevant to our discussion.

Ms. Jones has extensive experience building and deploying public facing web services, particularly within the state of Florida. From her bio… "I've led or been a part of response efforts to Hurricanes Isaac (2012), Sandy (2012), Hurricane Hermine (2016), Hurricane Matthew (2018), and Hurricane Dorian (2019)." She is perhaps best known recently for her role as Geospatial Systems and Science Manager at the Florida Department of Health where she built the COVID-19 Data and Surveillance Dashboard.

There is no mention of Hurricane Michael. Indeed, of the five hurricanes named in that paragraph, only one appears in our lead—Dorian—where, like Michael, it is followed by a {failed verification} tag because we have no references to support our claim that "she led the agency's geospatial response."

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

Doctoral Course Work and Dissertation

On Rebekah Jones' personal website she states that she pursued a PhD at Florida State University from 2016 to 2018 and also that this is in progress. In a Florida Today article [1], authors Sassoon and Waymer write "A Florida State University spokesman confirmed Jones was a Geography PhD student from the fall semester of 2016 through the spring semester of 2018 but has not earned a degree.". - Markkitt (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The March 31, 2020 story[2] published by Syracuse University states:

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

- Markkitt (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

It is possible that she is working on her dissertation independently. - Markkitt (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

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

References

Stalking / Harassment case

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

References

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

Concur. Also, when I actually search the county's Cases for her name, the 'Stalking' Case is referred to as 'Closed', not 'Open'; Evidenced by no court activity on that court case for more than a year. https://cvweb.leonclerk.com/public/online_services/search_courts/process.asp?report=full_view&caseid=2938847&jiscaseid= — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.225.130 (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I too agree. There was a case in July [3], but it is unrelated and was apparently dismissed. This can be noted in proper context somewhere, but not as a separate section. My very best wishes (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)