Talk:Linda Bebko-Jones

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BLP Concerns[edit]

In case anyone has an issue with the coverage in this article, every single thing in this article is cited with WP:RS. There aren't any WP:BLP problems, because this case has received wide press coverage (therefore, does not violate WP:NOHARM, since it is not like this article is breaking the news to anyone). Also, nothing in here accuses Bebko-Jones and her staffer of actually forging any petitions--it merely states that a properly convened grand jury decided that there was enough evidence to indict her, and that the PA Attorney General agreed. If she is found not guilty, then the article will reflect that, but the facts of her indictment will remain. I hope this explanation heads off any problems with this article. --RedShiftPA (talk) 17:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to say that all the folks who worked on this article in the last fews days have done a heck of a job. This article has even been nominated for a "Did You Know" segment on the wikipedia main page! "Did You Know"--RedShiftPA (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulletin Concerns[edit]

The article cites an article from The Bulletin, a paper in Philadelphia, with details about the Bebko-Jones investigation. That article clearly plagiarizes material from an article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which was, in fact, the story that first revealed the investigation. You should remove the Bulletin link and replace it with one to the Post-Gazette article of Nov. 4, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.177.38 (talk) 06:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I checked out the two articles you mention [1] and [2], and I don't see any "clear plagiarism". They were both using the same basic operative facts, and both interviewed Buzz Andrezeski, but I don't see any copying of words. Maybe you can be more specific about which passages you think might have been lifted?--RedShiftPA (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think they meant this Post-Gazette article, but it still doesn't seemed like plagirism. --​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​talk•contribs 17:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't interview Buzz Andrezeski. They simply lifted the quotations from a copyrighted article in the Post-Gazette. Andrezeski never interviewed with them. If you check the Associated Press coverage of the case, you will see that AP made a point of crediting the Post-Gazette -- something The Bulletin article does not. Why do you insist on using The Bulletin as the citation when the original article is available? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.0.144.80 (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still took a look at those articles, and no obvious plagiarism jumped out at me. Please, give us some examples of copied passages--since you seem to have found them.
Anyways, the bulletin article in question is only used as further sourcing for the fact that Bebko-Jones was indicted. (See my earlier post at the top to see why there are like 9 sources for that fact.) There was a second reference to it, but it didn't seem to refer to anything, so I took it out. --RedShiftPA (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I've spent more time on this than I should have. The facts are these: Bradley Vasoli's article in the Philadelphia Bulletin quotes, verbatim, from a letter that Andrew Andrezeski sent to the Attorney General of Pennsylvania. The letter was not generally circulated. It was obtained by one newspaper, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The Bulletin article simply lifts this exclusive material from the Post-Gazette article and does not attribute it to the actual source, the Post-Gazette. Additionally, Vasoli's article reports, absent any reference, that Terra Heilman, a Bebko-Jones aide, testified before the grand jury. One news outlet had that information -- Ms. Heilman did not and has not since, commented on the matter. Again, the source of that information was an exclusive article in the Post-Gazette. In short, the Bulletin story reflects no original reporting on the origins of the probe. If Andrezeski had distributed his letter generally, if Terra Heilman had, in fact, publicly confirmed her role, then it would not require attribution to the source of the information. But the story does not. it simply appropriates information someone took considerable trouble and expense to develop and report and uses it without acknowledgment. Why doesn't someone contact Bradley Vasoli and ask him where he obtained this information? The answer will doubtless be that it was picked up from an Associated Press article about the ongoing investigation -- an AP story that cited the Post-Gazette as its source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.177.38 (talk • contribs)

If you are that concerned about it, why don't you just replace it? Montco (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or contact Mr. Vasoli? Or the AP? Or the cops? Whatever. I removed the reference, since it didn't was only used to cite the fact that Bebko-Jones was indicted. --RedShiftPA (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo caption[edit]

The photo of Bebko-Jones is not a "mug shot." A mug shot is a photo taken by police at the time of arrest. The attached photo is Bebko-Jones's Pennsylvania Driver's License photograph. This is what is used by the Pennsylvania Attorney General's office as the official identifying photo of a suspect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.177.38 (talk) 03:28, April 21, 2008

I changed the caption, but would it be possible to get a source for that? --​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​talk•contribs 13:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Linda Bebko-Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Linda_Bebko-Jones&oldid=1206211676"