Archives:1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 180 days
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.
neutrality dispute
I've looked at the talk and history and started the work of resolving it with the top. I'm confused by the back and forth. It seems like people both think it is too favorably biased towards the subject and others, including the subject herself, think the opposite is true. I do think there is substantial negative coverage missing, but the overall weight of the subject in reliable media is positive. 184.180.217.57 (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Request to protect page from anticipated mass editing
Rebekah Jones, who tried to edit this page multiple times to whitewash it of anything negative, just created an alternate Twitter account @JonesWikipedia and is likely to push for a mass editing campaign to scrub this page. It might be ideal to protect the page to prevent what is likely coming. [1]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.121.219 (talk • contribs)
I am not an editor, but the 'legal issues' section states that Forbes and Ars Technica reported that the login info Rebekah Jones allegedly used to access the states emergemcy botifocation system was easily accessible with a google search. That is false. Forbes linked to the Ars Technica article, but did not report independently. The Ars Technica article does not source any of their information and references a reddit conversation. That information is not reliable, and Ars Technica is not a reliable source. That is why no major news articles reported that the login information was 'googlable' the entire paragraph should be removed or significantly reworded. 2600:1005:B19B:E132:88B3:A798:8D43:B5EF (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I am not an editor, but the 'legal issues' section states that Forbes and Ars Technica reported that the login info Rebekah Jones allegedly used to access the states emergemcy notifocation system was easily accessible with a google search. That is false. If this were true it would have been reported everywhere as thhat event was signifcantly covered by the media. Forbes mentions the Ars Technica article, but did not report that information independently. The Ars Technica article does not source any of their information and references a reddit conversation where a years old document is shown. There is no evidence or proof from the reddit string or anywhere else that that is the login info she used. The information reported by Ars Technica is not reliably sourced, and Ars Technica itself should not be considered a reliable source for wikipedia articles. Again, no major news articles reported that the login information was 'googlable'. The entire paragraph should be removed or significantly reworded. 2600:1005:B19B:E132:88B3:A798:8D43:B5EF (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources list, "Ars Technica is considered generally reliable for science- and technology-related articles." A cursory review of the destination article shows it was investigated with appropriate rigor. Unless you have a reliable source that contradicts their claims, there's no reason for it to be removed. However, I am going to remove the Forbes citation, as it adds nothing in terms of verification of the claim. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is.03:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
Partly done: See prior, removing from queue. Re-open if needed. Geardona (talk to me?) 18:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)