Talk:Ron DeSantis/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Far Right Catagory

I have reverted this edit by Zman19964 that categorized DeSantis as "far right."[1] I'm sure there are people who may describe DeSantis that way, but he's not notable for being a member of the far right. I have noticed here and elsewhere a growing number of categories like this being misused. Please find consensus before adding again. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

DeSantis has not been described or labeled by reliable sources as being far-right. Therefore, he should not be categorized as such. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 16:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Desantis is a founding member of the freedom caucus which is a far right organization and has espoused and promoted far right conspiracy theories. Zman19964 (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

It's simply false to state that DeSantis has not been described as far-right. Please check published sources before making such statements, which may mislead editors here. Some sources say "right wing" as opposed to "far right" but he is notable over the past 2 years or so for positioning himself to the right of Trump as an alternative that might appeal to more orthodox conservatives than Trump's personal base. Even just googling "desantis far right" demonstrates sources do indeed see him that way. SPECIFICO talk 19:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Right-wing and far-right mean different things. If you are certain that there is sourcing to include far-right than the ONUS is on you to provide them. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 19:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

If you'll do the search I suggested, you will see both with "far right" predominating. SPECIFICO talk 20:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I've already done my research. Again, if this is something you care about the burden in on you not me. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 21:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

BURDEN and ONUS are two distinct issues. SPECIFICO talk 22:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

When it comes to WP:BLP, it must be sourced to reliable sources and not editor interpretation (WP:OR). BLP is non-negotiable. Curbon7 (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

That is not in dispute. Do you deny that reliable sources do not characterize his views and actions as far right? SPECIFICO talk 23:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused by your comment here since I clearly said "I'm sure there are people who may describe DeSantis that way." As far as him being "notable for positioning himself to the right of Trump" that's a matter of opinion. He's notable for being the Republican governor of Florida. However, I understand people who follow politics are prone to hyperbole. Nemov (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Good call by Nemov here. DeSantis is not widely described enough as being on the far-right for inclusion in this category, compared to other lawmakers for whom the label is a lot more prominent in the media/for whom there is coverage of FOR being a far-right politician (e.g. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar etc). It's always possible this could change in future, but I see it as unlikely. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with Nemov, Checkers, and Ser on this one. There was a point when RS's considered DeSantis to be a more moderate candidate as well. However, if RS's are provided, maybe we could do a sentence like "Sources conflict on whether DeSantis is more aligned with moderate republicans or far-right republicans"? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I am curious about the supposedly contradictory nature of the sources. Is DeSantis preaching for Ultranationalism and Nativism, or does he oppose them in any way? Far-right politics is an umbrella term for certain types of nationalist and xenophobic ideologies. Dimadick (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah...I can see the problem with using that terminology. If right has to be mentioned, just maybe say "right"? Or do we need to create the article "Desantisism"? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2023

Add Ron DeSantis being an author to his bio. 216.195.237.27 (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Where? If you mean in the lead or infobox, probably no, there really isn't any notable coverage of him or his two? books. Cannolis (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced modifier

The opening sentence currently reads "... an American politician, attorney, and former military officer serving as the 46th governor of Florida since 2019."

I'm pretty sure Florida has had only one governor since 2019. The sentence should be "... an American politician, attorney, and former military officer serving since 2019 as the 46th governor of Florida." RichardSRussell (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Done! Thank you for the proposed fix. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Foreign Policy

Why is his foreign policy section called “foreign politic”? And why is it filled with grammatically incorrect nonsense like this: “In 2014 and 2015 he was agreed to send the weapon to Ukraine against Russia And reproached Obama for having no effective strategy in the face of Putin's aggression on Eastern European countries”? Can someone who is actually able to edit this article at least ensure that it is written in proper English? Also, it might be a good idea to include ANYTHING other than his views on Ukraine when discussing his perspective on foreign policy. The world is a big place, and DeSantis has direct experience at Guantanamo and in Iraq. Those experiences doubtless inform his foreign policy. This can’t be considered informative on DeSantis’s foreign policy positions until it has adopted proper, comprehensible grammar and included more comprehensive information on his positions. 2601:410:81:C180:5C0B:7AF:99BC:C502 (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

This section was added recently. I've removed it completely since it's malformed and it would be better to include at Political positions of Ron DeSantis. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Personal Life

I rolled back this edit[2] and MTWildhack added back the following:

Unlike most politicians, DeSantis has few close friends or confidants.

It's not clear how this single source addition is relevant for a personal life section. Also the comparison to "most politicians" is original research since the original quote says "Besides his wife, his most trusted adviser, he has few friends, let alone confidantes." Please find support for additions. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The Unlike most politicians is OR, but the fact he has few friends does seem like it can be mentioned in the personal life section. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 21:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Similar things have been reported about Barack Obama[[3]] in the past and it would seem undue to mention in his biography. I don't see any difference here. Not every WP:RS source needs to be jammed into an article. If there was a ton of coverage about it I'd understand, but that's not the case here. Nemov (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Obama doesn't have a personal life section. I don't know what is more relevant to one's personal life than their relationships. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 21:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect, and like I said it's not mentioned. This coverage seems trivial to me, but I've been wrong before. Nemov (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I'll regress on the assertion that there is no Obama personal life section. Also, just because it's not mentioned at Obama doesn't mean that it shouldn't be mentioned here. WP:OTHERSTUFF. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 04:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The Ronald Reagan BLP says he “had close friendships with many political leaders across the globe….” But there have always been “experts” saying he had few friends because of emotional problems: “As the child of an alcoholic, Reagan had difficulty maintaining close relationships, and was known for having few if any close friends.” That’s from Feuerherd, Peter. “How Ronald Reagan Was Affected by his Father’s Alcoholism”, JSTOR Daily (January 4, 2018). So I am generally skeptical about psychological appraisals of politicians by so-called experts who have never met them. In the case of DeSantis, former Congressman David Jolly says DeSantis is a serious person but “not a loner”.[4] Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

It's stretch to claim "he has few friends." This is WP:BLP and we should proceed with caution about including things of this nature when they're trivial. Again, this article needs less trivial information and certainly not more fluff, but if editors insist on leaving this in then Jolly's quote should be included to balance it. I'm not sure how any of this will be relevant twenty years from now. There's needs to be significantly more coverage to justify inclusion. Nemov (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not saying that the sourcing given is sufficient or that the word is good enough but something about the general idea might be appropriate. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

According to CNN:

"He kept to himself a bit in the House," said Ryan Costello, the former Pennsylvania congressman who served alongside DeSantis. "He had friends, he had allies, but he was not the gregarious back-slapper that some politicians are always characterized as being."

We should probably be careful to distinguish personal friends in his personal life on the one hand, from friends at work in his professional life on the other hand. Probably the latter should not be covered in the section on personal life. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm ready to pull this out of the personal life section. It seems like of a pointless to have "Some have said DeSantis has few close friends or confidants while others have said he has friends and allies, but was not a gregarious back-slapper like other politicians." Given the sources this seems like a matter of opinion than of fact. If no one has a strong objection I'm going to remove. Thanks - Nemov (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2023

Please add the following citation to the first sentence of the last paragraph in the Early life and education section, as it relates to Darlington School:

<ref>{{cite web |last1=Robles |first1=Frances |title=Pranks, Parties and Politics: Ron DeSantis’s Year as a Schoolteacher |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/05/us/desantis-high-school-teacher-georgia.html |website=The New York Times |access-date=1 March 2023 |archive-url=http://archive.today/2023.02.22-180912/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/05/us/desantis-high-school-teacher-georgia.html |archive-date=February 22, 2023 |date=November 5, 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

Thank you! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Wrong marriage date

The DeSantis’ were married in 2009 not 2010 2A00:23C8:905:2701:C4C7:E2FD:BFEB:C02A (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Claims about Guantanamo Bay

The section about DeSantis's military career should include additional public details about DeSantis's role as a lawyer at the Guantánamo Bay detention camp.

Please add the following to that section:

Former Guantanamo detainee Mansoor Adayfi has accused DeSantis of being one of the architects of breaking the hunger strikes at Guantanamo Bay in 2005. The Real News states, "According to Mansoor, there was no lawyer prior to DeSantis. DeSantis was brought in specifically to break a hunger strike. He was not replacing some other lawyer whose job it was to ensure the human rights of detainees." Adayfi describes DeSantis's role as follows:

Mansoor Adayfi: We were beaten all day long, all day. There’s a team, whatever you do, they just beat you. Pepper spray, beating, sleep deprivation, that continued for three months. And he was there. Because at the beginning he told us that he was there to ensure we are treated humanely, and if we have concerns or issues, he will take it. But he’s one of the people who actually supervised the torture, the abuse, and the beating all the time at Guantanamo.

Mike Prysner: So Ron DeSantis, he wasn’t just there as a lawyer that you could go to. He was actually supervising torture, beatings, and he was supervising these force feedings of you and others.

Mansoor Adayfi: Ron DeSantis was there all the time because his job was to walk around and talk to prisoners in the camp. That was the job because the report is like, I am here to ensure you’re being treated humanely. I’m like, I’m telling you Americans, if this is humanity, this guy is a torturer, is a criminal.

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Curbon7 (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

What is the basis for considering the two sources listed as unreliable?Slipandslide (talk) 03:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

For a starter, one is a SoundCloud podcast. While there hasn't been a discussion on reliability of The Real News Network at WP:RSN, I am very bearish on its reliability based on the about page. Curbon7 (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Note that this subject was discussed before at this talk page, here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Harpers has also republished the interview Freedom4U (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

This is discussed below. Nemov (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Navy Rank

DeSantis' bio states that his most recent rank in the Navy was Lieutenant Commander, however there is no proof of this within his bio. Instead, it states that "he was promoted from lieutenant, junior grade to lieutenant in 2006," and "accepted a reserve commission as a lieutenant in the Judge Advocate General's Corps of the US Navy Reserve." I wanted to check-in and see if anyone has proof of his status as a Lieutenant Commander, prior to editing it down. Born of Iron (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It's been mentioned in previous press releases and it hasn't been refuted. It's also been reported here[5]. Nemov (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

NY Times: Inside Ron DeSantis's Politicized Removal of an Elected Prosecutor — The Florida governor accused the Democratic prosecutor of undermining public safety. But a close examination of the episode reveals just how fueled it was by Mr. DeSantis's political aims”

Not sure why this was reverted as a ref idea, so I'm listing it here:

• Inside Ron DeSantis's Politicized Removal of an Elected Prosecutor – The New York Times, March 11, 2023

Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Where was it reverted as a ref idea? Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Here[6]. I don't understand how it's useful. Nemov (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. This piece says, “Two weeks after his removal, Mr. Warren sued the governor in federal court seeking his reinstatement. The lawsuit, which Mr. Warren appealed after it was dismissed in January, produced a significant quantity of discovery….” So it’s being appealed, and it might be best to see how that goes before adding more to this BLP. It’s already covered at the Andrew H. Warren BLP (which was just created yesterday). Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Self-published book - High-Pitched Hum Publishing

This article currently lists his books including "(2011) Dreams from Our Founding Fathers: First Principles in the Age of Obama. Jacksonville: High-Pitched Hum Publishing". This is a self publishing / pay-to-print service per https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/2008/12/08/author-turned-publisher-seals-deals-lives-dream/16003437007/ and this should be noted in the article.Dialectric (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why this matters? People with high profiles self-publish books all the time. It's only listed in the Publications section, not in the prose itself. Curbon7 (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I added the cite to the book, got reverted immediately. It makes a difference whether someone's book was published or self-published. People with high profiles don't have a problem finding a publisher to edit and print their books (and pay them advances) — see Michael Cohen (lawyer), Omarosa Manigault Newman, Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have some guideline basis for this argument? I don't understand what the WP:OTHERSTUFF you cited matters in regard to the argument for inclusion. Nemov (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

That was in response to People with high profiles self-publish books all the time. WP:MOS-BIBLIO says that the standard form for publication details on books is "Place: Publisher, Year." In this case, the publisher is DeSantis, not High-Pitched Hum Publishing. They're just the printers DeSantis paid. Instead of High-Pitched Hum Publishing, the item should say "Jacksonville: self-published." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Alleged dog whistle

Regarding the alleged dog whistle, Desantis denied it was racist, so I added three words to article text saying he denied it (I also inserted a pertinent quote into the footnote).[7] Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Please, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies applies. :

• • "On Wikipedia, many articles cover criticism of a subject. Editors are often tempted to close these sections with self-sourced denials - "X denies the allegations" based either on the subject's own self-published source or on a press release repeated in a newspaper story. Newspapers typically give the subject the last word. This may be false balance, for example when people are credibly identified as espousing a position that is known to be unpopular. Very few anti-vaccinationists, white nationalists or anti-semites are prepared to go on record and own their positions, and very few pyramid schemes, fake universities or predatory journals will own up to what they do."
  • "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We do not need to give the subject the last word. We include credible allegations from credible sources, we attribute them when they are the work or opinion of small numbers of individuals and we state them in Wiki-voice when the consensus is overwhelming." Dimadick (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The denial here by DeSantis that has been deleted, “DeSantis denied the racism charge”, is very brief (only five words), and so it takes up very little space and creates no false equivalency. Moreover, the denial is very well-supported by reliable sources, though I only used the New Yorker. This should be included if the incident and accusation are mentioned. I will get some more sources for it later today. I haven’t cited WP:BLP yet, but it certainly applies: “If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too.” Essays need to be read in light of what the policy says, and also in view of counter-essays, like Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies does not apply. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• There 2018 and 2022 elections could be summarized significantly and the incident in question can be moved to the 2018 campaign article since it's not really a significant part of the overall biography. A good example of how this should look is Gavin Newsome. Each election probably only needs a paragraph to describe the candidates involved and the outcome. Nemov (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Idea

A reading of this article reveals the Governorship and U.S. House tenure sections are poor, with undue emphasis on COVID in the former. The issue I've identified is that much of the information that should go into those sections is being diverted into the Political positions section. I'm proposing to scrap the Political positions section and merge all the content into the tenures. Of course this would be a major change to the article, so I wanted to float the idea here first. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 03:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Might be a good idea, that's the way it's done at Nikki Haley and also Gavin Newsom for example. Each office has its own set of policies and positions, so the whole artricle is more chronological. My only qualm is that we seem to first need to resolve a huge revert to the 2021 covid subsection here. See immediately-preceding talk page section. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the political position section has morphed into a tenure section where editors keep adding tenure items. Political positions should just summarize DeSantis' political opinions and not every bill that's been passed. Nemov (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'm asking all of you to check out my sandbox User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers/sandbox. I've drafted what the article would look like with the content merged into the relevant tenures. While I don't want to make a 100% guarantee (accidents can happen), the content, wording, everything is exactly the same just relocated. The only differences is minor, insignificant sentence restructuring (e.g. adding a clause like In April 2019... or new subsection headings) I didn't go and try to sneak out things I didn't like or anything like that. I'm happy to implement this whenever the community is ready. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Will get to it, but I’d like to first get some closure on the previous talk page section. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Understood, but I don't think this restructuring impedes on the ability of that discussion to carry on. The COVID section could still be revised. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  I’ll see if there’s any more feedback about 2021 Covid section today, then try shortening that section again, then look at general restructuring of positions/policies. But of course anyone can focus on restructuring first if they want. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  If there's no opposition or concerns raised in the next lets say two days, I plan to implement the changes. Of course if there's a consensus or agreement above to change the COVID-19 section I would implement those into the restructuring as well. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 20:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Good start. Some sections stand out more than need to be trimmed. All those paragraphs dedicated to topics should be cut or folded into the tenure. Right now the abortion section is 3 paragraphs. Abortion hasn't been that big of a topic during his tenure. The key parts of the tenure are COVID, education, and the response to the hurricane. Nemov (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with your assessment of the abortion section, but I think the initial restructuring shouldn't involve trimming since it's more likely to lead to opposition. Trimming can be done afterwards. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm fine with that. Is the only place for linking to Political positions of Ron DeSantis in the right sidebar? Nemov (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yea I saw that problem while drafting the restructuring. I don't know where it could be naturally introduced into the article besides the side bar, but I'm open to ideas. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 14:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  I do think eventually there's going to be a small "positions of" section once the tenure section is fleshed out. Nemov (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. I could see it being something similar to the one at Joe Biden. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 14:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• I implemented the restructuring. Letting @Anythingyouwant: and @AlsoWukai: know their edits made post the draft I did were accounted for. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 14:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC) @Graham87: your edit's were accounted for as well. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 14:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for doing this, this should be a good starting point to help summarize this article better. Nemov (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Desantis SEAL “Trident”

Some media incorrectly claim that that Ron Desantis wore the Navy Trident insignia while assigned to his support role as a staff officer attorney for SEAL Tm 1. This claim includes a picture of Desantis in desert cammies. The claim is false. SEALs must complete BUD/S and SEAL Qualification Training, neither of which were completed by Desantis. In the picture, Desantis is not wearing a Trident but the Fleet Marine Force insignia, which is earned when a Navy person completes a formal qualification program and is then assigned to a Fleet Marine Corps Unit. This was likely earned while Desantis served as a staff officer attorney supporting the Marine Corps Security Force Company, Guantanamo Bay, ensuring the rights of detainees. 2600:1700:1243:FB70:51C8:EC50:B56B:7101 (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a question? This isn't a forum for original research. Nemov (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Covid 2021 subsection revert

This revert added 1714 bytes back into this BLP, with a very short and vague edit summary "NPOV". There has been no description of what exactly the NPOV issue is. Here is the subsection in question before the revert. Per WP:REVONLY, "The encyclopedia is damaged when positive contributions that should be preserved are caught up and lost in a revert." Therefore reverts need to be precise. This one certainly isn't precise. I did a lot of work in my "sandbox" trying to whittle this subsection down and also add some pertinent info, it needed to be shortened as the tag at the top of it said. Needless to say, it is discouraging when someone like User:SPECIFICO comes along and indiscriminately wipes out a lot of work and labor without giving any detailed explanation. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the explanation for the revert is weak. If there were specific NPOV concerns they should be outlined. Like much of this article that section needed some work. Nemov (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It was a bold swing AYW. Your edit summary just said "shortening subsection per tag", but you actually added new content and sources. At a glance, much of the removed content was about some of DeSantis's more controversial actions, and the added content tends to give more weight to DeSantis's views; NPOV is a reasonable reason to revert such a set of changes. I do think SPECIFICO's edit summary could have been better, though I'd say the same to you. Your edit similarly indiscriminately wiped out a lot of work without explanation.

Now that we're here, do you care to make a case for your changes? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The section was too long, full of recentism (the outdated kind), and needed updating. As far as the vaccine rollout, it focused on a pop-up clinic in one county, completely omitting the 60 Minutes episode which took a much broader and wholistic look at things, and prompted broad and wholistic rebuttals. I think the Regeneron could be completely removed to some sub-article, because it's so obviously unimportant, but I thought it best to elaborate upon it before removing it so that people can get a fuller picture. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Which parts are outdated? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I already gave an example of outdated recentism: the focus on a pop-up clinic in one county, to the exclusion of a later 60 Minutes program (and rebuttals to it) that broadly covered alleged discrimination during the vaccine rollout. Can you please identify anything in particular that you think is not NPOV? By the way, User:Firefangledfeathers, please feel free to look at all the lengthy, delicate, elaborate editing I did in my "sandbox" to make this update (visible in my contribution history); I didn't just do a one-button-stroke wipeout like someone else did recently. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how the 60 Minutes piece makes the Sun Sentinel coverage outdated, and I do think describing the 60 Minutes segment as "perhaps the most comprehensive and highest-profile criticism" is non-neutral. If we are going to cite the Herald-Tribune piece (that itself cites 60 Minutes), there's much more critical commentary from other outlets to summarize and no need for so long a quote from DeSantis. One of your removals of content that I think is due is the part about Ladapo. All of the cited sources (and many more uncited ones) have a heavy focus on Ladapo's stated views prior to the appointment. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

You say my shortening of the Ladapo material is "due" but then you argue against it? I'll assume you meant "undue". I inserted that Ladapo's views are "like-minded" with DeSantis, that seems like a perfect summary to me, readers will get the idea that he allegedly appointed a yes-man, we don't have to spend gobs of article space attacking Ladapo here, that can be done (and is done) at his own BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

"One of your removals of (content that I think is due)" is what I meant, but I see how you parsed it otherwise. The "yes-man" angle on Ladapo is not nearly as much a focus of the sourcing as his views on vaccines (and more), and (as shown by the sources) DeSantis's decision to appoint the guy in the middle of the pandemic was very much seen as a reflection of his own views and priorities. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

"Very much seen as a reflection" = "like-minded". There's no need to belabor it here when we've got lots of space to do so in the Ladapo BLP, not to mention the huge article on Covid in Florida (that's in the hatnote of the present BLP section). Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the Sun-Sentinal article you mentioned, it focuses on a narrow incident in Manatee County. The material I substituted in from the Herald-Tribune (and also CNN) has a much broader focus throughout the state. The Herald-Tribune covers the Manatee stuff, but much more, so if we include separate sourcing on Manatee then we would logically have to provide separate sourcing on all the other stuff covered by Herald-Tribune and CNN. I don't see how it's responsible editing for someone to just stroll in here and delete these more retrospective and reliable and widely-focussed sources. ***Anderson, Zac. "'60 Minutes' segment on Florida’s COVID vaccine rollout spotlights claims of DeSantis favoring wealthy", Sarasota Herald-Tribune (4 Apr 2021).***Cillizzaa, Chris. "'60 Minutes' just gave Ron DeSantis a massive gift", CNN (6 Apr 2021).*** Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

If you're just concerned about the sources, I'd be fine with restoring yours with the content unchanged. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)\

No, I'm not just concerned about the sources, obviously. Why should we select Manatee from the broad respective retrospective article, and add specific details about that, while adding no details on all the other stuff we're not yet talking about in the broad respective pieces? The broad retrospective pieces cover both stuff that is kind of favorable to DeSantis as well as unfavorable, and you're apparently arguing that it violates NPOV unless we only detail some of the unfavorable stuff. I think it's generally unwise to just vanish reliable information from Wikipedia (like Manatee), but please keep in mind that material on the present subject can also go into COVID-19 pandemic in Florida, for example. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

To be clear about what I'm arguing: I don't think the status quo content on "threatened to withhold COVID-19 vaccines" is outdated. I picked the second of your initially stated concerns—because I agree with the first, that the section is too long—and asked for an example. I don't think this is a good example of outdated content. Since we're trying to cut length, I don't think it's helpful to mention the 60 Minute reporting (with a non-neutral description of the reporting) and then include a lengthy quote of DeSantis's rebuttal to it. I'm absolutely interested in replacing/fixing/removing any outdated content. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

For our Wikipedia purposes, sources (and our use of them) become outdated if better retrospective sources come along that have a broader and more comprehensive focus. I could find you narrow specific contemporaneous sources on every little bit of stuff covered in the comprehensive, broad, retrospective pieces that User:SPECIFICO deleted, and you're still going to argue that we should only use the ones on Manatee? That would be the opposite of NPOV. As far as 60 Minutes is concerned, that program was broadcast nationwide to over 10 million people, it's much more notable than a local report about Manatee County, and since the 60 Minutes report has been criticized by CNN as well as DeSantis, I don't see the problem with saying so. 60 Minutes gets its day in the Sun here, and so does the rebuttal. That's NPOV. We could certainly paraphrase DeSantis instead of blockquoting him, but I just thought a blockquote would break up the wall of text nicely, and it's a BLP about him after all. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I expect to try again to overhaul the 2021 covid subsection late tonight, taking into account all the comments in this talk page section. At this point, it looks like I will include some stuff that subsequently I’ll urge to get removed separately, like moving the Regeneron stuff to the BLP about Ken Griffin, removing details about Dr. Ladapo to his BLP, and removing details about covid rollout in Manatee County to the main article on Covid in Florida; so I plan to tentatively leave all that stuff in this BLP for now, while restoring the other edits that have been unproblematic, and I’ll later start talk page sections to discuss removing more that is being tentatively kept. Will also try to find a link to the full 60 Minutes episode critical of DeSantis so that our readers can directly access it. And will convert blockquote of DeSantis into paraphrase. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Some stuff came up, but I hope to get to it soon. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. Will start a talk page section below about Regeneron. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking another shot at it. I reverted some of your changes, trying to keep as much as I felt I could, and I've come around on removing the Manatee County spat. I tried to explain the changes I made in my edit summaries, and I'd be happy to clarify here if needed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Regeneron

This BLP includes the following paragraph:

“ DeSantis has encouraged monoclonal antibody treatment for COVID-19, which can treat people after they get sick and reduce hospitalization. One such medication is made by Regeneron, which was a $16 million investment by a $39 billion hedge fund run by DeSantis's largest political donor Kenneth C. Griffin. The hedge fund denied any conflict of interest, noting that it had much larger investments in vaccine makers Pfizer and Moderna. Likewise, a DeSantis spokesperson said that any suggestion of corruption over this small connection to Griffin via Regeneron was illogical, and that Griffin's position favoring Regeneron made no more difference to DeSantis than Griffin's position against revoking The Walt Disney Company’s special tax status.

References

”

I think this whole paragraph ought to be removed to the article COVID-19 pandemic in Florida. We could also (or alternatively) remove it to the BLP about Kenneth C. Griffin. The main problem with keeping it here is undue weight, it seems relatively insignificant in the life of DeSantis, and I don't see how shortening would make it better. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree. It was an addition that leaned on WP:RECENTISM and doesn't pass the WP:10YT. Nemov (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. Moved it to the Griffin BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Good removal. If anyone feels compelled to restore the Regeneron content, please copy it back from Kenneth C. Griffin, where I fixed up a ref and removed some SYNTH. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

That SYNTH needed to be fixed at the Griffin BLP, thanks, although there’s a better solution than deleting it. Of course, none of that stuff should be copied back into this BLP against/without consensus. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Warning

For preparation of 2024 election, group will try manipulate this page to push political agenda cause political divide in united states system. The article will have vandalism order get extended-confirm status on article and protect on talk article disparage any contribution or discussion that not on side. This to ensure cause politic issue in united states and elect candidate that further divide USA politic 45.95.67.205 (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

We will cross that bridge if we ever get there. If you insist, you can go to request page protection now; though, I don't believe it would be successful. We typically don't protect pages as "preparation." Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Great Barrington

I restored some material about the Great Barrington Declaration. Here's my edit doing that. The previous reference for this was Newsweek which apparently is not considered as reliable as it used to be, so I used a better source. It seems clear that the Great Barrington Declaration has a close relation to the covid policies of DeSantis (whether we agree or disagree with that Declaration or with DeSantis's policies), so it seems well worth mentioning. We say later in this BLP that Ladapo signed that Declaration, so all the more reason for us to first describe it a little. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The GBD is fringe, so we'd need to incorporate the mainstream view. Do you think DeSantis's connection to the declaration is strong enough to justify the treatment? I bet we can do it in three sentences. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems undisputed and indisputable that, as the New Yorker reported, “For DeSantis, who espouses a libertarian vision of small government and personal freedom, the ideas in the Great Barrington Declaration resonated.” I think we now get this point across in the BLP adequately and succinctly. I would not favor slapping a fringe label onto either DeSantis or the GBD, we provide a wiki link so that people can go read about the GBD and all the negative things that many smart doctors have said about it. We currently follow the Filkins source well. If there’s another reliable source comparing DeSantis’s views with those of the GBD, then we should look at it too. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

How about just "That approach was similar to the one advocated by the Great Barrington Declaration, published a few months later." I think it's the "what a substantial faction of doctors recommended" that is the most grating against WP:FRINGE. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

No problem, just changed it to “That approach was similar to the one recommended a few months later in the Great Barrington Declaration.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

CNN sourcing

This edit is concerning. I'm not talking about article text here, just references. User:Firefangledfeathers's edit summary says "trimming the 60 Minutes/Cillizza content...." But actually the edit kept the 60 Minutes footnote while deleting the Cillizza CNN footnote, and the latter clearly calls into question the former:

Cillizza, Chris. "'60 Minutes' just gave Ron DeSantis a massive gift", CNN (6 Apr 2021): “in the wake of the '60 Minutes' report, multiple Democratic elected officials have come out to debunk [some of it]....The report – and the backlash – amount to a massive gift to DeSantis...."

So I'd be inclined to put this footnote back in per NPOV, because CNN here provides a different POV from CBS. The excerpted quote is a statement of fact (i.e. there was backlash to the 60 Minutes Report) so we ought to footnote not just the 60 Minutes Report but also the CNN critique from Cillizza. Again, the issue I'm raising here is just about our footnotes, not article text. The Cillizza piece is news "analysis" and is not labelled "editorial" or "editorial analysis". Per Wikipedia guidelines, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." I propose to simply put this reference back in, at the end of this existing BLP text:

“ DeSantis's initial rollout of vaccines in early 2021 gave rise to various complaints about favoritism toward campaign contributors and discrimination against communities that were predominantly Democratic, poor, or inhabited by ethnic and racial minorities. DeSantis denied the alleged favoritism, defended his handling of the rollout, and pointed toward many vaccines distributed in underserved communities. ”

Maybe later we can discuss whether the article text should be modified to reflect that multiple Democratic elected officials joined DeSantis's denial to some extent. But for now, let's just make sure to keep good sources. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I actually didn't mean to keep the 60 Minutes citation, though I wouldn't push strongly for removal. It's just that the content is all supported by the Sarasota Herald-Tribune source. The CNN source is analysis, usable per WP:NEWSORG, but definitely in need of some care in evaluating its due weight. Since the quote is not really about DeSantis, and absent coverage in secondary sources to suggest some weight is appropriate here, I'm not seeing a strong case for inclusion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

It would be much much much better to keep both CBS and CNN sources than to delete both. Here are the two footnotes we have re. 60 Minutes:

“ Anderson, Zac. "'60 Minutes' segment on Florida's COVID vaccine rollout spotlights claims of DeSantis favoring wealthy", Sarasota Herald-Tribune (4 Apr 2021).
Alfonsi, Sharyn. "How the wealthy cut the line during Florida's frenzied vaccine rollout", 60 Minutes, CBS News (5 Apr 2021). ”

The 60 Minutes piece got huge national attention, and dwarfs local news in Florida. People who are interested enough to look at our footnotes deserve to find this stuff, I think. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone is going to care or make sense of this in in twenty years. The main part of the 60 Minutes piece was that Publix got to roll out the vaccine because of campaign donations. This was discredited by someone not politically aligned with DeSantis. I guess we could explain both since they're sourced, but I'd just leave it out as bad reporting. Nemov (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

If we get rid of the three sources discussed in this talk page section so far, then what’s left to support the article text? The 60 Minutes piece wasn’t just about Publix either, and in any event the bad reporting seems somewhat revealing. Footnotes are cheap. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Navy Seal

The page lists DeSantis as having been a navy seal without credit. 2601:582:301:41E0:F84B:EAE6:4143:D4C4 (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done There seems to have been a misunderstanding that DeSantis served as a Navy SEAL; he instead was deployed as a legal advisor tasked with supporting a SEAL commander. The best description of this role can be found in his archived congressional bio here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Ancestry

I shortened the ancestry info a bit. Seemed excessive to mention the province of Abruzzo three separate times, once seems enough. See https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/other-as-a-verb Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

2004 - "enlisted" versus "commissioned"

I think the following is incorrect: "In 2004, during his second year at Harvard Law, DeSantis was commissioned as an officer in the U.S. Navy and assigned to the Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps (JAG)." All the articles I've seen say that he enlisted in the Navy in 2004, not that he was commissioned that year. In 2004, he must have signed a contract, probably committing to at least four, possibly as many as six years active duty, in exchange for the Navy paying his tuition, and/or other benefits. But the Navy would not have commissioned him as a JAG officer without his actually having a law degree.

So something like this would be more accurate: ""In 2004, during his second year at Harvard Law, DeSantis enlisted in the Navy; upon graduation, he was commissioned as an officer in the U.S. Navy and assigned to the Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps (JAG)." -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's some background info for possible use here at the talk page. It includes the date he was commissioned as an officer. Many officers get commissioned once they have graduated college. See also this link regarding "the most common way to become a Navy JAG Corps officer." Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

New photo copyright concern

I'm doubtful the new image is copyright-free. The Commons licensing is listed as PD-FLGov, but the website appears to be a personal website for DeSantis, with no indication it is run by a state organization; in fact, it appears to be run by the PAC "Friends of Ron DeSantis", which is certainly not a government organization for which PD-FLGov applies. Pinging uploader User:Corkythehornetfan. Curbon7 (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Curbon7: Image is almost certainly not free. It seems to be a promotional image used by DeSantis as part of a press kit. See its use in an announcement here. I did a reverse search and found no public origin for this image. While a reverse search is not exhaustive, there's enough for me to think we can rollback this image and return the consensus one. I'll put a copyvio tag on the Commons page. @Corkythehornetfan:, just ensuring you see this discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I would object to the image change anyway. We have a consensus for the current image in light of there not being an official portrait to use. Nemov (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Congressional Baseball Shooting

Desantis had a close brush with death and with a significant historical event in the summer of 2017, so we briefly mentioned it in this BLP: “Though not present at the June 2017 congressional baseball shooting, he met the perpetrator beforehand, who asked whether Republicans or Democrats were playing that day.” That brief sentence has just been removed.[8] The edit summary by User:John Broughton says, “Removing single sentence about Congressional shootings, at which DeSantis was not present. I still don't see why an encyclopedic article should include a sentence that essentially says ‘DeSantis had a brief conversation with a bad person.’” This role of DeSantis was widely reported in summer of 2017. Plus continuing coverage since then….

• 2023, The Sunday Times (London)

• 2022, Toronto Star

• 2020, “Political Assassins, Terrorists and Related Conspiracies in American History By Scott P. Johnson, p. 175

We should reflect what’s in reliable sources. And even putting aside reliable sources, it’s a reminder that DeSantis is in a dangerous profession. And it’s only 25 words. We could shorten it further if people think 25 words is too much: “He was present before the June 2017 congressional baseball shooting, and the perpetrator asked him whether Republicans were playing that day.” That’s only 20 words, and I think readers would find it interesting. It’s also been in this BLP a long time, so I’d think it requires more consensus to remove it than if it was new content. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the short version is fine. FYI, the Sunday Times source is an excerpt of DeSantis's book. More recent coverage in this NBC piece. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree the short sentence is warranted. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 01:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with (rough) consensus, but I do note that I find this statement to be odd: "It's a reminder that DeSantis is in a dangerous profession". If by "profession" is meant "being a politician", I think that would certainly come as a surprise to most of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who run for political office each year. For example, there are 40-60,000 coal miners in the U.S.; many more of them die each year of work-related injuries than do politicians (and that omits deaths from illnesses).-- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Coal mining is definitely a dangerous profession, no argument from me about that. But that doesn’t mean no other job is dangerous. See here, for example. With lots of security and lots of caution, the risk shrinks a lot. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear. I'm not standing behind the idea that it should be included as notifier to readers that being politician has its risks. I just think it's been covered enough to warrant a brief mention. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of short sentence. It's a reliably sourced (taking it on good-faith for sources) and worthwhile tidbit. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Do we want footnotes in the lead?

As long as everything is cited in the article body, footnotes are not needed in the lead. See Template:Leadcite comment. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The status quo lead doesn't contain anything particularly contentious or controversial, and I don't see a need for any citations. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Done. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Speculated 2024 presidential run

I think that we should try to incorporate some more into that section of the article. I'm thinking about adding how, in a debate with Democratic opponent Charlie Crist, DeSantis refused to state whether or not he would serve a full term if re-elected Governor of Florida. WorldMappings (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Add it. I think that's relevant. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed! Activist (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Rape exception

The law doesn’t require « proof » that the woman was raped (which would generally mean conviction in a criminal court). The requirement is that a police report, restraining order, or other evidence is submitted.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/04/13/politics/florida-abortion-ban/index.html

207.195.86.116 (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

So proof. Curbon7 (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the question comes down to whether to use "proof" versus "evidence". The words aren't precise synonyms, especially in connotation. Because sources (including the one cited) use "proof", I lean towards that term. However, I think we should try to find a better source than People for this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems like this would be something that's discussed on an article about the specific law. The law restricts abortion to six weeks with exceptions for rape and incent. That's all that's really needed for this article. Nemov (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Nemov. If continued coverage places an emphasis on this proof requirement as exceptional characteristic of the law or specifically links the requirements to DeSantis, I think we should consider including it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

How about we don't get into the details at all and just link to the new article about the act? The thing most sources are focusing on is the six week limit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed! Activist (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Groveland

DeSantis pardoned the Groveland Four almost 75 years after two were murdered by local law enforcement within a few days of their alleged but probably nonexistent "crime." They were never tried or convicted for the likely nonexistent "crimes." One had been soon shot over 400 times by a sheriff's posse when he was found sleeping under a tree 200 miles away. The second was killed while handcuffed to a third who was also shot while being transported in a sheriff's car; the latter only escaped death by playing dead until others arrived at the scene of the unprosecuted murder. One of those two survivors died under suspicious circumstances not long after being released. So two were never tried, and pardons are only normally issued after convictions, or in i.e. the long list of Trump confederates, to peremptorily prevent legal prosecution process. So DeSantis did something that was essentially pointless except to get his name in the papers and/or ingratiate him with a constituency not particularly fond of him even though the long-deceased Four are hardly well known and may be without survivors. It cost him nothing at all to do so. Wikipedia shouldn't be politically promotional but including this pointless, pandering gesture would seem to have no other purpose. What's "notable" about it? Activist (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It occured during his tenure and is reliably sourced by a variety of sources including the AP, Washington Post, and New York Times. It seems due for a short mention in the tenure section. In light of there not being a policy argument being made against inclusion, I'm not sure what else there is to add. - Nemov (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Excluding it would be inappropriate and based on the idea Wikipedia has a duty outside of presenting accurate information recorded in reliable sources. Besides the cited sources, the pardoning appears in multiple papers of record: The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, and The Wall Street Journal. Now, we can discuss if it's encyclopedically relevant to DeSantis based on other merits, but excluding it because it's political fluff is a subjective assessment we shouldn't be making. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd have been more receptive to exclusion if it had been based on other precedents, like maybe George Wallace pardoning the Scottsboro Nine not making his article (unless I'm missing it). ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Governors in Florida have different powers from governors in Alabama. Per this web site, in Alabama:

“ In 1939, the Alabama legislature was granted the pardon power by an amendment to the state constitution. It created the Board of Pardons and Parole to exercise the power, which extends to all offenses save treason and impeachment.  Ala. Const. amend. 38 (amending art. V § 124). The governor retains reprieve and commutation authority in capital cases. ”

Per the same web site, in Florida:

“ The power to grant a pardon and/or to restore civil rights (except in cases of treason or impeachment) is vested in the governor, who may, “by executive order filed with the Secretary of State, suspend collection of fines and forfeitures, grant reprieves not exceeding 60 days, and, with the approval of two members of the Cabinet, grant full or conditional pardons, restore civil rights, commute punishment, and remit fines and forfeitures for offenses.” ”

Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

While an interesting bit of trivia, that has no relevance. I brought up the Alabama case to indicate there's an argument on precedence to exclude mention of the pardoning, as both Wallace and DeSantis exercised executive powers to overturn the outcome of racially prejudiced verdicts and only one has mention of such action in his article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Why do you think the governor of Alabama had pardon power after the 1939 amendment? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Because an Alabama governor pardoned someone in 1976. The board is just another part of the process in Alabama. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

No, that was not the governor who did it in 1976. “The action by the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles clears the last of the Scottsboro boys.” The governor of Alabama only retains reprieve and commutation authority in capital cases. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Anglicization

I inserted a pipe link to anglicization of names for readers unfamiliar with that common occurrence. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Do you have sourcing that indicates that this was anglicization or are you inferring that? ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Neither. To “infer” means to deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements. We have here an explicit statement in a reliable source that the name was changed from Rugerio to Rogers. We also have the explicit meaning of “Anglicisation” which is to change a personal name from a non-English-language personal name to a spelling nearer English sounds. So Anglicization happened here, and it’s obvious and explicit to people having access to reliable sources. Per WP:BLP, even if some inference were required here (which there isn’t), a specific reliable source explicitly saying that this particular name change was Anglicisation would only be needed for material challenged or likely to be challenged. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: So you inferred that this was a case of anglicization? Because I'm challenging that content. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

No, as I just explained, I haven’t inferred anything. Do you dispute that a name was changed to sound more American? By definition, that’s Anglicisation. No inference is needed. Readers unfamiliar with Anglicisation might think that this situation is no different than an escaped convict changing his name from smith to Jones, which is why the pipe link is helpful to readers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: That's all inference! Nowhere in the source does it say why the name was changed and "Rogers" is never described as sounding more American. All it says is "Antonio Rogers/Ruggiero, immigrated from Italy, and his name was changed after entering the U.S." That's it. The name was changed. You're insisting on a rationale based on inference (it's good inference and probably right, but inference nonetheless). ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

When a foreign name is changed to a name that sounds more American, that’s anglicization regardless of the motive. Maybe it’s because the immigrant wants to assimilate. Or maybe it’s because the immigrant wants to hide from Italian law enforcement. Either way it’s obviously anglicization, and no inference is needed. Just like you don’t need to infer that 😊 is a smiley face. It just is. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Pbritti, the definition of “anglicize” says nothing about motive. People unfamiliar with the predominant assimilation motive may erroneously infer more sinister motives. Is that what you want? Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Anglicization of names is a specific process, as described in definition 2b of the dictionary you cite. Nothing in the sources says that this was the basis for the name change (even though I agree it's the likely cause). Please don't insert original research on BLPs. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

”2b” is obviously an example, which is why it is preceded by the words “such as.” Readers should be made aware that anglicization of names is common, and it can be done for a variety of purposes, not just nefarious ones like evading law enforcement or hiding ethnicity. But you know that, right? Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2023

Ronald DeSantis’s height is 5’7”, though he is known for wearing boots with a 2” heel. 70.126.135.126 (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Even if you provide a reliable source, “articles on sports people show their height and weight because those personal attributes are generally considered relevant; articles on politicians do not show their height or weight or sexiness factor.”[9] Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Speculation about 2024

Wikipedia policy says, “Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.” See WP:FUTURE. We currently have a whole section titled “Speculated 2024 presidential run”. Let’s remove it. “Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions.” Id. For his part, DeSantis said this week in Japan: “I am not a candidate, so we’ll see if and when that changes”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Even if he doesn't announce a run, the speculation is still significant to him and his public image, as well as RS coverage. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 20:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

If he announces that he’s not running, then I’d support a brief sentence about that announcement. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

There is regular, long-lasting, and extensive coverage of his possible candidacy. Just today: AP, MSN, The Wall Street Journal, and Axiois. Essentially all non-local coverage DeSantis has in the national and international media is contextualized through the possible 2024 run. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, but it’s all rumor and speculation. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, no, as this degree of speculation actually has a real impact. It's inspired acrimony between DeSantis and Trump, increased DeSantis's profile both in the US & elsewhere, and has massively increased his political fundraising. These aren't meaningless statements and rumors, but informed speculation with real-world impacts. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a little bit in the WP:NOTNEWS territory. Speculation and political gossip sell newspapers, get ratings, and drive clicks, but we should avoid that stuff. This article should just include what's actually happened. Nemov (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, much of that section about 2024 is redundant and off topic: “On November 5, 2021, he filed to run for reelection as governor, and on November 8, 2021, announced that he had done so….DeSantis was reelected governor by almost 20 percentage points over Democratic nominee Charlie Crist….” Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

proposed new portrait

consensus is needed according to User:Nemov so here's my propsal. below is the current portrait used and my proposal, my proposal is new and a higher quality than the old one which suffers from slight blur/pixilation, let me know what anybody thinks

old portrait

File:DeSantis Portrait 2023.jpg

new proposal

Matthew McMullin (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: Current image is superior. Lighting in the new image has far more subdued coloring, a steeper and lower angle, and has him partially bladed to the camera. I agree that the technical image quality is better in the new proposal, but its content is less encyclopedic than the currently used option. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: In light of not having an official portrait, the current image is fine. We should just stick with that until there's an official portrait available instead of having a new discussion every few months. Nemov (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Some other options include [10] or [11], but I think the status quo is fine for now. Curbon7 (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm digging the new proposal, personally. [6] could work too, tho! WorldMappings (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  Still think the current option but I agree with WorldMappings that File:Ron DeSantis State of the State speech (cropped).jpg is pretty decent and workable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Disney

I couldn't believe that this article says nothing about the feud between DeSantis and Disney over the "Don't Say Gay" law. Their escalating feud has dominated the headlines for months and is the subject of a whole separate article, Disney and Florida's Parental Rights in Education Act. I have added a paragraph about it to the "LGBT issues in schools" section, unless someone thinks there is a better location for it. MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I support including a concise description of the feud with Disney. But this material just added today seems way too long:

The Walt Disney Company, owner of Walt Disney World in Florida, took a stand opposing the bill and calling for its repeal, after initially declaring neutrality.. In retaliation, DeSantis and the state legislature threatened to repeal the theme park's "special independent district" status. On April 22, 2022, DeSantis signed a bill eliminating the district and replacing its Disney-appointed board of overseers with a five-member board appointed by DeSantis. Just before the transition was to take place, the outgoing oversight board signed an agreement passing much of the oversight power back to Disney. DeSantis said the legislature would restore the new board's authority and threatened other retaliatory measures, such as requiring more stringent state inspection of Disney rides than other theme parks. On April 26, 2023, Disney filed a lawsuit against DeSantis and others, accusing him violating the company's First Amendment rights by utilizing political power for "government retaliation" purposes.

References

We should be briefly summarizing the main article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, I can trim it if other people agree it is too long. But IMO anything so important it has generated not one, but two satellite articles seems worth a paragraph here. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

A paragraph is fine, but a shorter one would be better. I will give it a try, in increments. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

There's a lot of coverage about this, but keep in mind that Wikipedia is WP:NOTTHENEWS. A brief mention of this is all that's required until more time to adequately determine how big it is in the overall biography of DeSantis. Nemov (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, consensus rules. Anything, I have modified/clarified some of your changes, but without substantially increasing the size of the section. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree your wording is an improvement. Reads too much like an editorial instead of just reporting the facts. Nemov (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

You really think "Disney took countermeasures, DeSantis did too" and "the matter is being litigated" are clear and informative? Those are not "reporting the facts"; they basically just sound like trying to avoid saying anything at all. But please let me know what you think is "editorializing" and we’ll discuss it. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Is your problem with "and DeSantis threatened additional actions against Disney.[237]"? I guess I can take that out if you feel it is non-neutral, but it is certainly true. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I gave it a shot and explained the grounds for the lawsuit by Disney. It should read cleaner now. Nemov (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Mentioning the 1st Amendment is okay, I chose to be more vague because there are other legal issues that may turn out to be more significant such as the Contracts Clause of the Constitution, but I have no objection to your edit. There are five different causes of action.. However, I would support removing “Florida Department of Economic Opportunity acting secretary Meredith Ivey, and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board” which is relatively unimportant. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I removed the excess detail from the lawsuit. If people want to know that kind of detail, let them follow the wikilink. I would like to keep in a little bit about the back-and-forth over control of the oversight board, but I haven't yet worked out a good way to do it. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Subheaders like”2020” and “2021”

Having a subheader say “Pandemic in 2020” is a lot clearer for readers than just saying “2020” because it tells readers that the subsection will be limited to pandemic stuff. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2023

I would like to see proof that Florida had a budget surplus and without cited sources this is conjecture and not verified fact. Please edit the information to reflect this . 66.255.220.43 (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

It's cited in the body of the article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-07/florida-posts-21-8-billion-budget-surplus-a-state-record. Endwise (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Fort Lauderdale Floods

I'll leave it up to another editor, but the new section added by @Melofy doesn't belong on this article. It's not a significant enough of an event to warrant an entire section in this biography. It's recent and doesn't pass the twenty year test. Again, this biography isn't a catch all for everytime DeSantis name is mentioned in the news. Nemov (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

We don't know that anything on this page makes 20YT. SPECIFICO talk 18:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Ron DeSantis being a governor of Florida will certainly pass that test. Nemov (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Right, so that's a single sentence. SPECIFICO talk 18:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

A single sentence about the flooding would be plenty in this BLP for now. The main article on the flooding mentions DeSantis once: “On April 28, Joe Biden signed a disaster declaration after Florida governor Ron DeSantis requested one on April 22. "Biden Administration Approves Disaster Declaration After Historic Fort Lauderdale Flooding". NBC 6 South Florida. Archived from the original on April 28, 2023. Retrieved 2023-04-28.”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't even think it's worth a mention. Unless there's a lot more coverage it's not a major part of his tenure worth noting. Nemov (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I removed the section. It was poorly written, gave wildly undue value to "a citizen" of Fort Lauderdale, was not written in an NPOV fashion, and had at least a half-dozen MOS issues. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

HB873

There’s very little media coverage of this legislation, probably because “The state had already provided an exemption for information about people such as executioners and the prescribers of drugs for lethal injections.” [12] Better to cover this at the main article about capital punishment in Florida. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Here’s my article edit. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Italian locations

We have a note saying which Italian provinces his great-grandparents were from, but the note does not say which great-grandparents were from which provinces. Meanwhile, the main article text says “Nicola DeSantis and Maria Nolfi, who were born, respectively, in Cansanoand in Bugnara, Abruzzo region….” We don’t explain why we give this info in the main text for only two of his eight great-grandparents, and I think that info should be moved to the note, and the note should be expanded to say which great-grandparents were from which provinces. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Without some independent sourcing, I suggest removing everybody he didn't personally interact with. This is trivial unsourced assertions. SPECIFICO talk 16:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

That would be okay. Otherwise moving it to the note would work. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I moved some stuff to the note. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

And some more stuff. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)