Talk:Ron DeSantis/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Proposing a new portrait

Proposing that we use this recent image from the 2023 State of the State address for the portrait field in the infobox. Since the article requests that consensus be attained before a change, would like to start this thread.

I think that while the present image works well, this one gives the advantage of recency. The resolution also seems to be a bit higher compared to the present one. Given that also it was taken at the state of the state, it's a lot more "official" of a portrait as well than one taken at CPAC or another event. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• weak Oppose: the proposal is a fine image and perfectly suitable especially now that it has been properly vetted for copyright. However, it strikes me as no better than the current image. It feels far more like a candid shot than the current image (I know, talk about an objective measure). While it was taken more recently, it's only about two years newer and I can't notice much change in appearance between the two. Additionally, while it was taken at an official function, the only reason I think we can ascribe and sense of officialness to it is that it was published through a DeSantis-associated channel. It really isn't any better than the current image by any metrics I care about, so I prefer status quo. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Until there's a official portrait available just stick with the status quo. Nemov (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support- not the best since he's turned to the side, but still more formal and at a less odd angle than the current picture. This image should be fine for copyright purposes as a product of the state of Florida. Bill Williams 02:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

In the proposed image his face is parallel to the plane of the image, while in the current image his face is tilted upwards relative to image. Additionally he is wearing more formal attire in the proposed image (full suit vs. unbuttoned dress shirt) and the image is a higher quality one, even if it is not official it still is more formal. Bill Williams 02:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Support - It's higher quality and more formal looking compared to the current image in place. In addition, it's more recent. Expoe34 (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, a side view like this is unusual and unexpected for a top image. It’s still a good photo, and maybe should go lower in the article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Changing DeSantis' image to a more recent picture?

Based on the current listing, the image in question was captured in 2021, which is approaching a duration of almost two years. As a recommendation, I propose that we replace it with a more recent photograph.

File:DeSantis Portrait 2023.jpg

Expoe34 (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Expoe34 I prefer the image suggested above by InvadingInvader since it is higher quality and at less of an odd angle. Bill Williams 02:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The one below from January 2023 looks more appropriate than the others under discussion. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I like the one I proposed better but this one works as well. The status quo doesn't work as well as it used to. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Image A

Image B

Image B is extracted from Image A, photographed January 2023

Low resolution. Curbon7 (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I just now boosted the resolution. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Another photo discussion? Unless there's a compelling reason to replace the current photo just leave it until there's an official portrait. None of the new option appear to be that much of an improvement to reopen this discussion again. Nemov (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Smiling is a factor. The top photos for Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, etc etc are all smiling. Smile and the world smiles with you. Don’t and they won’t. Smiles signify happiness. Image A or B would be best. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus in this section or subsection, so if that situation continues then I'll probably start an image RFC tomorrow. In order to not split the !vote between image A and image B, I'll probably use only image A in the RFC (because head shots like Image B seem less common for politicians at Wikipedia). In the mean time, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images gives this pertinent advice:

• Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic.
• It is often preferable to place a portrait (image or representation of a person) so that they "look" toward the text, but do not achieve this by reversing the image, which creates a false presentation. (Faces are never truly symmetric even in the absence of scars or other features.)

Also see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section:

• As with all images, but particularly the lead, the image used should be relevant and technically well-produced. It is also common for the lead image to be representative because it provides a visual association for the topic, and allow readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Since there is no real significant interest in any image recently proposed and prior changes have been consistently shot down, I think it's safe to assume an RfC is unnecessary. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

People are dissatisfied with the current image, hence the many current proposals to change it to a better one. This is a classic situation where an RFC is appropriate. Additionally the present image is not facing toward article text, it’s old and not very representative of current appearance, it’s atypical in that there is no smile, etc etc. If the current image is obviously preferred in the RFC then the RFC can be snow-closed right away, but that’s not the sense I’m getting. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous waste of time that would be immediately erased if there's an official portrait. There's already been several discussions about this already. Nemov (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

When was the last RFC on this subject? Do we have the slightest idea if and when there will be an official portrait? People who don’t want to waste their time don’t have to participate in any RFC. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

You can review the archive. Considering valuable editor time is a worthy argument when reviewing a topic that's already been discussed previously. Nemov (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from the archive, we’ve occasionally had some discussion about photos, but not one RFC. We have had RFCs on other subjects, like Covid and the “monkey this up” comment. Those RFCs were helpful because they automatically solicited comment far and wide. We now have a large selection of possible photos, the top photo is the first thing people see in a BLP, so frankly I don’t see the problem. If you don’t want to participate, then don’t participate. The mere fact that we chose an image a long time ago when the choices were few seems like a bad reason to keep that image possibly forever. Which is why we have several pending proposals at this page for new images. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Any decision made by an RfC would be automatically erased as soon as there's an official portrait. Just because you believe the status quo is a bad image doesn't mean a formal RfC is required. There have been a myriad of different choices discussed over the last two years. Nemov (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

There have been a myriad of different choices discussed over the last two years, and almost every time you’ve suggested that an official portrait might be imminent so we should tolerate the crummy image and not change it to a better one. But the official image was but a mirage, and may well remain a mirage. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The current photograph and the one before were chosen by consensus. This is apparently something you're unable to achieve here without the threat of a RfC. Nemov (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

While they may have put it a tad more tersely than I would have, I agree with Nemov. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not proposing to achieve consensus by any threat whatsoever. I am proposing to achieve consensus by conducting an RFC, which is what RFCs are for. We have never had an RFC on the top image. I was part of the consensus for the present image in January, but I didn’t think we’d be stuck with it until an official portrait materializes.[1]. Better images have become available since the January consensus. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

If no one but me is interested in having our first image RFC, then it’s probably best to withdraw the proposal for an RFC. Assuming there’s no official image released within a few more months, then hopefully opposition to opening an RFC will abate, and/or support for opening an RFC will increase. Am I a good sport, or what? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Out of date reference to 'average' covid numbers in second paragraph

The second paragraph has a misleading sentence with non-neutral language regarding covid deaths and economy. It has no citation and is not written from a current point of view. 2601:647:CA00:2CA:3DA7:5C63:BE22:D3FB (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but are you referring to the final paragraph of the lead? If a claim is sourced in the body of the text, it can be state without citation in the lead. Additionally, the statements are written with the correct past-tense verbiage and—in my opinion—are written in a generally neutral way. If you have specific changes you'd like to see based off reliable sourcing, please discuss them or make the changes yourself! ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Bias in narrative of COVID policies and death toll

This article engages in highly political spin regarding his covid policy "accomplishments." It has been conclusively shown that the DeSantis administration doctored data to fit their narrative. ANd that narrative should not be depicted as fact in an encyclopedic format, since that is bound to mislead the reader. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article253796898.html?utm_source=floridahealth.gov&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=newsroom&utm_content=article&url_trace_7f2r5y6=https://www.floridahealth.gov/newsroom/2021/08/083121-fdoh-sets-the-record-straight-false-data-claims-miami-herald.pr.html 2600:6C54:4800:2B1:1CF1:1853:A27F:9BF6 (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The allegation that Florida's COVID data was subject to widespread tampering aside (I think there's still debate to the extent), a good portion of the data discussed in the article—including datapoints that paint a comparatively positive view—are cited to independent source that post-date the allegations. If you can identify specific numbers that are erroneously reported in the article and substantiate their falsehood with reliable sources, please do so. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Mansoor

I see Mansoor Adayfi is now in this BLP, regarding Guantanamo. I inserted the date of his interview (Nov 2022). FYI, according to Joseph Hickman, a former U.S Army team leader and Sergeant of the Guard at Guantanamo, “As far as him being involved, I don’t think he was. He was way too young and green in the JAG Corps to be involved in anything.” See Christensen, Dan. ”Ron DeSantis accused of illegal acts of torture against Guantanamo detainees when he was a Navy JAG officer”, FloridaBulldog (26 Jan 2023). Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

This addition should be removed on the same grounds as the Torture_at_Guantanamo_Bay request above. There's no original reporting in the Harper's Magazine citation, it's from the same "Eyes Left" podcast. Eyes Left is a socialist, anti-war military podcast. It's not a WP:RS. Nemov (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. We should wait for an RS. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Torture is not a left-right issue. And Anythingyouwant's "source" is clearly worse, so I don't see that as the overriding concern here. The issues would be NPOV WEIGHT and including any statements from DeSantis on the matter. SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Harpers is generally reliable, but they merely copied the interview from an unreliable podcast. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That is false. The Harper's piece discusses the statements of Mansoor along with other reporting. SPECIFICO talk 14:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I've always said to just simply wait until a mainstream outlet publishes an investigation. The Miami Herald has one of the best investigative journalism bureaus in the entire country, I'm sure they're already looking into this, especially considering he is likely going to run for president. Curbon7 (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep, if there's a story there it will eventually be reported by reliable sources. We haven't gotten there yet. Nemov (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The assertion is not in Wikivoice (which would trigger the concerns expressed here), but merely, "According to a November 2022 interview with former Guantánamo detainee Mansoor Adayfi, DeSantis oversaw beatings and force-feedings of detainees." Harper's is a reliable source and the sentence is appropriate for inclusion. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That's correct. Harpers is RS for the attributed statement in the interview. And the Florida Bulldog goes into quite a bit of detail about the allegation, also lending it WEIGHT. As to what DeSantis says, we will certainly include reporting however RS present that when he chooses to comment. SPECIFICO talk 21:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

JArthur has removed the Florida Bulldog (whatever that is) report which is fine. This is a very serious allegation by Adayfi and will need to be supported multiple WP:RS to justify inclusion. A transcript of a podcast fails that standard. Like Curbon7 says above, if there's legs to this story it'll eventually be picked up elsewhere. Nemov (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Harpers, RS, has made that evaluation. Your argument applies to stating it as fact in Wikivoice, which we are certainly not going to do at this stage. SPECIFICO talk 21:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Please review WP:BLPPUBLIC.

If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

If you can provide multiple reliable third-party sources for this allegation please feel free to make the addition. Nemov (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting WP:RS. In particular, WP:BIASED does not say that a source cannot be reliable if it is biased, but rather that "although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context."

Eyes Left is clearly a biased source. However, the claim here is simply that Mansoor Adayfi made these allegations about DeSantis, and it seems to me that an audio recording of him saying that is clearly a reliable source for that claim. 2601:281:8780:4B70:9D61:CAB9:D493:B537 (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

We have a reliable source that the claim was made, but not multiple ones documenting it, nor any indication from any reliable source whether or why the claim is (or might be) credible. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Our job is not to assess claim reliability. It's to assess whether the claim was made and whether it is relevant. Harper's is certainly a reliable enough source that we can assume the claim was made.

I think the relevance is clear too. This is not a random person who made the claim - it is someone who is known to have been at DeSantis's workplace when the torture was alleged to have occurred. There are absolutely reliable sources showing he was at the facility at the same time as DeSantis (see the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/guantanamo-bay-detainees.html#detainee-441) Fastidiously (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, Harpers did engage in journalism when they republished the interview. Their own page makes it clear that they tried to (but could not) falsify the claims through reaching out to Ron DeSantis for comment. Fastidiously (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources do verify that the Mansoor was a Guantanamo detainee, and it was during the time Desantis is said to have worked there by reliable sources. 73.128.210.80 (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• I think that the (just-removed) paragraph citing this was misusing it as a source. The source's focus is on In his run for governor this year, DeSantis is spotlighting his time at Guantanamo as a key credential. Yet details about what exactly DeSantis did during this historic period are limited. DeSantis' campaign declined to make the candidate available to discuss the experience, generally emphasizing that few details are known. Taking a source like that and using it solely for to quote praise for DeSantis from military figures who worked with him (who are, obviously, people whose opinions are going to be biased about him and about Guantanamo Bay as a whole) is giving their views undue weight and misrepresenting the focus of the source overall. I don't think that source should be used in any context, since the main focus of it is that it doesn't know the details. --Aquillion (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Accusations that DeSantis was involved in torture should not be included until there is significant reliable source coverage. The fact that the NYT, WaPo, CNN, etc. have not covered this means it shouldn't be covered yet under BLPPUBLIC. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 02:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

In what world is Harper's not a reliable source? They are not politically neutral but they are well regarded - certainly the article should be viewed as a reliable confirmation of Mansoor's statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastidiously (talk • contribs) 16:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

It is. Additionally, Miami Herald has now covered the Adayfi statements, as have other RS. I restored to article with the additional citations. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Curbon7 was indeed correct. The Miami Herald article did a really good job with their article.[2] There appears to be enough to warrant some kind of mention, but there's a bit of conflicting information. I've adjusted the inclusion to read:

Mansur Ahmad Saad al-Dayfi, who was held at Guantanamo alleged that DeSantis oversaw force feedings of detainees during his time there.

That seems like it covers what we have so far that's reported in the Herald. Nemov (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@JArthur1984 changed[3] "alleged" to "stated" on the basis of MOS:ALLEGED. I guess I can go either way on that, but per MOS:ALLEGED:

Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged, and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear.

This is an unproven allegation with another person denying it happened. The alternative could read something like:

Mansur Ahmad Saad al-Dayfi, who was held at Guantanamo stated that DeSantis oversaw force feedings of detainees during his time there. Zak Ghuneim, the camp’s longtime cultural adviser denied the account.

Kind of seems long for what we know so far. Nemov (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Good point. I now favor alleged over the longer version, but I take no issue with either. JArthur1984 (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• No rush I suspect that many mainstream journalists and investigators are chasing down the facts, which are really quite unclear at this point. I would wait until we get a more comprehensive narrative as to why he was stationed there, his mandate, and how he conducted himself when he saw what was occurring. Otherwise readers will be making all kinds of unsupported inferences from our article text. SPECIFICO talk 00:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 00:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  I won't be surprised if there's more coverage, but I'll be surprised if there's much else learned. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• I agree there's no rush, but I think we're very close to having enough sourcing to make not mentioning this at all an NPOV issue. It's also mentioned in The Nation and a few syndicated copies of the Miami Herald piece in other Florida papers. I don't see that Ghuneim's view is likely to be due, but if we get a direct denial from DeSantis, it should be included per WP:BLPPUBLIC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  I tend to agree that we are getting close. However, I would like to see some more mainstream coverage. It's likely a matter of days before this goes mainstream, and I'm merely saying it's best to wait till then. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 01:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think there's enough to include the passage @JArthur1984 and I worked out. Unless there's some other startling revelation that'll probably cover it. Nemov (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• More allegations in "A second ex-Guantanamo detainee says Ron DeSantis attended brutal forced feedings", Florida Bulldog. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  The allegations have now appeared in The Independent, which is an RSPS-vetted source from outside Florida (outside the US, even). Sceptre (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• I added the source to the already included content. I'm not sure there's much more to add to what's already included unless something else comes to light or DeSantis decides to comment on it. - Nemov (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2023‎

Mansur Ahmad Saad al-Dayfi, who was held at Guantanamo, alleged that DeSantis oversaw force-feedings of detainees.

• I don’t object to adding Independent, but we should keep the Newsweek footnote, it has useful info. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  Post 2013, Newsweek isn't a reliable source. With the addition of The Independent it makes sense to remove the weaker sources. Nemov (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  ”consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis.”[4] I don't mind switching the Independent for Newsweek, but re-added relevant material (as a quote in footnote) that's in both articles, here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't object, but I don't understand why the footnote is needed? The article just states the allegation and makes no commentary about force-feeding. Nemov (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  I didn’t insert any footnote today. I just inserted a quote into the footnote. It’s a quote from the cited article, the Independent. The pertinent quote inserted into footnote is interesting. It's relevant to whether DeSantis had any legal option, assuming he witnessed force-feeding. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• With the Independent source, I suppose it's ok to include that accusation now. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 03:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the sentence "In 2023, he said: "I was a junior officer. I didn't have authority to authorize anything", and that a commander would have made such a decision." There's an interview from 2018 where DeSantis admits to having authorized force-feeding. It's from CBS Miami. In a Democracy Now segment, another detainee, Ahmed Ould Abdel Aziz, also corroborates the force-feeding. Die Kunst Der Fuge (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand the inconsistency here? The 2018 interview talks about being a legal advisor. Advisors don't authorize actions, they advise about what's legal or not legal. That seems consistent with the interview later. What am I missing? Nemov (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

He says "the commander wants to know how do I combat this.  And the job of the legal advisor is to say '“hey, you actually can feed, here is what you can do, here are the rules for that."' So it's very clear that he, as the legal advisor, is the one who authorized force feeding as a legal tactic to be applied by the commander.

I'm not sure why this is in question at this point. Thalia42 (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It's because commanders give commands and advisors advise. This isn't complicated. Nemov (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

FYI, User:Nemov, this edit by another editor doesn’t seem minor, contrary to edit summary. I then modified it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I've resorted this to the original text outlined above. There's not enough coverage of the this allegation to justify having the DeSantis response. You can add it in the footnotes if you wish. Nemov (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Nemov: There is enough coverage. The Washington Post has now reported on his time in Guantanamo and his statements on his time there. Simón, el Silbón (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Enough coverage for what? The allegation is mentioned in this article with due weight. If this biography included every single thing the Washington Post wrote about DeSantis it would go on forever. Nemov (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nemov: Enough coverage of DeSantis' 2018 statements on what he did in Guantanamo regarding force-feeding. Simón, el Silbón (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: It is important to provide the full context. DeSantis did suggest that the force feedings were legal and the commander made the decision. The Washington Post article explains this. Simón, el Silbón (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Allegedly oversaw beatings

This BLP currently says in wikivoice that allegedly, “DeSantis oversaw beatings”. The Harpers source quotes the former prisoner Mansur Ahmad Saad al-Dayfi: “He was one of the people that supervised the torture, the abuses, the beatings.” The other source (the Independent) mentions “beatings” twice, but neither paragraph mentions DeSantis. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it needs to be better sourced that the Harper podcast transcript. Nemov (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Even the Harpers stuff is equivocal. The interview asked Mansur to confirm what he had said about beatings, and Mansur didn’t. prysner: So Ron DeSantis was actually supervising torture, beatings? He was supervising these force-feedings?
adayfi: I’m telling Americans: this guy is a torturer. He is a criminal. He was laughing. And he was there to ensure we were treated humanely.. Of course, even if he had confirmed it, we couldn’t say it without further sourcing. We have lots of sourcing that Mansur accused DeSantis of overseeing force-feeding, and it’s telling that the sourcing is much much less as to beatings. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

user:Pbritti thinks this talk page discussion is goofy. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes—it's also deceptive. Anythingyouwant said the article previously read as This BLP currently says in wikivoice that, “DeSantis oversaw beatings”. That's flatly false. The passage read "alleged in 2023 that DeSantis oversaw beatings and force-feedings." The phrasing always indicated that this was an allegation. Further, the allegation was, in fact, made. Just because it wasn't repeated in that interview doesn't mean it wasn't made, and reference to beatings in other sources indicate that the context encourages inclusion of that additional allegation. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

In the past we didn't included the force-feeding when it was only source from the Harper. We added it once there were other sources. We would need multiple sources to add this as well. Nemov (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The original allegation that was reported was that of only force-feeding, not sure when beatings also came in. At this point, this is likely an issue that should be raised to a wider audience at WP:BLPN. Curbon7 (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I fixed my error above. Also, I agree with Nemov because the sourcing is a lot stronger re. the accusation about force-feeding. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

That prisoners were allegedly beaten is explicitly mentioned in The Independent and the allegations against DeSantis described in the article are not exclusively force-feeding but general "torture" (which encompasses beatings). We should probably expand the article to describe the allegations as being of "torture, including force-feeding" as that's supported by the RSs. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, I made the same error twice (above) and fixed one of them before Pbritti called the other one to my attention. There was no “deception”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion was based on the notion that there was a wikivoice statement that wasn't existent. Thank you for striking the misleading comment and replacing it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing it out. But the additional basis of the discussion is that the sourcing is much weaker as to beating, compared to force-feeding. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anything has changed to support straying from the status quo. If people disagree I agree with Carbon7 on the next steps. This hasn't received enough coverage to warrant more than a few words. Nemov (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Didn't reinsert the "beating" bit but I think there's clear consensus to include it, with the only issue being one editor for exclusion and one editor for rephrasing to put the citation somewhere else (that's a fine solution in my opinion). ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Controversial allegations need to be sourced by multiple reliable sources per WP:BLP guidelines. The Harper source isn't reliable. The other reliable sources talk about DeSantis and force-feeding, but not about him watching beatings. Nemov (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the comment above at 00:51, presumably I am the “one editor for rephrasing to put the citation somewhere else” but that’s not quite right. I do not support keeping the beatings stuff in this BLP at this point. I said at this talk page that the beatings stuff “needs to be better sourced” and I also said that I “agree with Nemov”. As for my article edits, I removed the beatings stuff but was reverted, so I edited the BLP two more times merely to rephrase so we are not suggesting that more than one source supports the beatings stuff, and I was clear in my last edit summary that I was only keeping the beatings stuff “in this BLP for now”. My recommendation is to take it out unless and until we have better sourcing, but if other editors do insist on putting it back in (without consensus) then it would be better not to mislead readers into believing that multiple sources support it. The editor who initially inserted “beatings” today said in his edit summary that only “2” sources support it, so I asked at his user talk which sources those were, and he said Harpers and Independent, so I looked at these sources, and found that Independent did mention beatings but didn’t say DeSantis was present or involved in or accused of beatings, so that leaves just the semi-accusation in Harper’s (which the accuser declined to confirm when asked to do so). Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The RS support beating. His assignment apparently was to be observing every part of prisoner treatment. There is no claim that he ordered or participated in torture but he witnessed everything. That was his job. SPECIFICO talk 01:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a developing story so we should be able to get more recent sources. Whatever the source of the allegations, they are being taken credibly and are consistent with known facts, while DeSantis' denials are widely seen as disingenuous. Bear in mind that the reason the U.S. set up a prison camp in Guantanamo Bay was that they believed it was outside U.S. law, hence torture of prisoners was entirely legal. TFD (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this has to do with WP:RS and WP:BLP guidenlines. We're not here to determine if someone is disingenuous. Nemov (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Nemov, I do not see significant dissent here that would justify your having removed the minimal reference to Desantis' service at Guantanamo. Please restore it. There have been articles about his service there for at least 4 years. There's no question as to why he was stationed there and his role in observing what has been defined as torture, including force-feeding and beatings. SPECIFICO talk 14:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your comment. The article is in the status quo position that mentions the force-feedings that are backed by multiple reliable sources. The new addition about "beatings' fails that threshold. Whether or not "force-feeding" is torture is a POV. The article states what's is sourced with due weight. - Nemov (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

That's why I said "defined as" rather than asserting torture. Beatings is adequately sourced. We basically have one editor's veto/edit war against evident consensus here. Having just begun to search for additional sources, I see plenty. They convey the sense that although he was in a subordinate role, he did not act to protect either the prisoners' rights or the liability of the US Military. They are remarkably consistent with recent depictions that portray him as amoral and self-centered in that respect. SPECIFICO talk 14:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

You can read @Anythingyouwant comment above supporting my position. I'm not sure where you're getting this "evident consensus." The current sourcing is lacking, if you have WP:RS connecting DeSantis with beatings present it. Nemov (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I’m glad to learn about further sources. As TFD said above, “This is a developing story so we should be able to get more recent sources.” The sourcing we have now in the BLP is insufficient for including the material in question. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

22 May 2023 edits

Is this edit worded appropriately? Trying to respect WP:BLP. Time at Guantanamo received notable amount of coverage (Washington Post). Remember WP:ALLEGED while editing too.--Simón, el Silbón (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Beyond perhaps being a bit of an overemphasis on his particular quotations (that's a subjective measure on my end), I think a key bit of context is missing in the when of these comments. If you want to rephrase that passage, please seek a consensus here first. I'm more than willing to approve a revised passage with those fairly useful quotations, but I think a few of the article regulars might disagree with me on merits. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: So how should the quote be replaced? As mentioned in previous talk page talks, this is now notable and covered by a lot of sources. DeSantis has spoken directly about his job at Guantanamo and the UN statement provides a neutral point of view about the views of force feeding. Simón, el Silbón (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any issue to using the word alleged in this instance. This fits in fine with WP:ALLEGED that states although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined. You can review the discussion above. The amount of coverage in this article about Guantanamo is sufficient. Nemov (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Copying from Encyclopedia Britannica and inserting op-ed

A text passage in the Ron_DeSantis#COVID-19 section was copied from Encyclopedia Britannica. Britannica original:

he lifted restrictions much earlier than other governors, though he implemented measures to protect the elderly. While many predicted dire consequences, Florida’s death rate (more than 75,000 people) was within the national average, and the state’s economy fared better than many others.

WP text, added here:

He lifted restrictions earlier than most other state governors, but implemented measures to protect the elderly. DeSantis managed to avoid the dire consequences predicted by many, Florida’s death rate was within the national average, and the state’s economy fared better than many others.

The source does not credit DeSantis or anyone else with avoiding dire consequences, so giving credit to DeSantis in WP voice is unsourced, undue, and op-ed. I read WP's policy on tertiary sources. Seems to me that using Britannica as a source is something different than helping to "evaluate due weight", so this entire passage should be based on reliable secondary sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this is over the line between paraphrasing vs. plagiarizing. I also think it's not appropriate to use tertiary sources for anything controversial, particularly current politics.WP:TERTIARYNOT Anything along these lines should result in plenty of available, reliable secondary sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be WP:COPYVIO, our policy that describes in detail what's not OK. It also does not NPOV reflect the weight of RS on the subject. SPECIFICO talk 13:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I support removing the Britannica stuff because when I inserted it I did not check perennial sources where it is listed as questionable.[5]. I don’t agree that the removed text gave DeSantis more credit than Britannica gave him. The edit removing Britannica also removed text citing a second source, because the text allegedly did not convey that “Florida’s COVID-19 deaths are still among the highest in the nation". But actually that source said this: “over the past few weeks, the state’s death rate is still among the highest in the nation.” Notice the words “past few weeks”. What happens over the course of a few days or a few weeks is insignificant compared to statistics that describe months and years, so that’s why article text did not use that bit. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

You copied two sentences from Britannica and added OR and POV by changing While many predicted dire consequences to DeSantis managed to avoid the dire consequences predicted by many. This is the version before you started the edits in question. Here you added:

He lifted restrictions earlier than most other state governors, but implemented measures to protect the elderly. DeSantis managed to avoid the dire consequences predicted by many, Florida’s death rate was within the national average, and the state’s economy fared better than many others.

Here Wukai made a few changes to the second sentence:

DeSantis managed to avoid the dire consequences many predicted, Florida's death rate was near the national average, and the state's economy fared better than others.

Here you "beef up the footnotes" by adding a direct quote to the footnote of the first sentence and a second source to the second sentence:

He lifted restrictions earlier than most other state governors, but implemented measures to protect the elderly. DeSantis managed to avoid the dire consequences many predicted, Florida's death rate was near the national average, and the state's economy fared better than others.

It's unclear to me why you added the second source. It doesn't support the Britannica sentence, and the quote in the footnote doesn't appear in the text. Here I removed the first sentence with the first Britannica cite. Here I changed "DeSantis" to "Florida" in the second sentence. Here I removed the second sentence with the second Britannica and the WUSF cite.

To your above statement The edit removing Britannica also removed text citing a second source, etc.: the source did not support the text where it was cited (WP:CITE), so why did you even put it there? It's dated October 14, 2021. If it's a relevant source for the 2021 section, feel free to add it there. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I have already agreed (above) to remove the Britannica source and the text cited thereto, so I fail to see why you are belaboring the matter here; doing so cannot possibly improve the BLP. Moreover, I did not insert any POV. The cited source said that DeSantis lifted restrictions much earlier than other governors, but he implemented measures to protect the elderly. His efforts on behalf of the elderly were thus successful in avoiding dire consequences that many predicted would happen because of his early lifting of restrictions. I phrased it as I did because that was obviously implied by the cited source, and moreover I was obliged to not simply copy what the cited source said so I rephrased it. Perhaps I would have done better to rephrase it even more than I did, but no POV was added. If you have suggestions for improving the BLP as it stands now, I’m glad to discuss it, but I don’t see you are making such suggestions. The preamble before the 2021 Covid section was itself chronological, discussing how he began with mixed reviews but ended up with better assessments. That’s why I included a 2021 source in the preamble. Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Did you remove it? You can take it home with you as a souvenir if you'd like.👧🏻 SPECIFICO talk 12:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It was removed here which is fine, it’s gone, let’s move on. Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Sweet. SPECIFICO talk 12:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

There was nothing to agree to. I didn’t need your approval or agreement to remove the text you copied from Britannica, and I removed all of it yesterday, including the POV. You still don’t seem to understand that copying text from copyrighted sources violates Wikipedia policies, so you may want to read up on it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

As I said, I *agree* that removal was appropriate because of the listing at perennial sources. And I *agree* to not revert your removal. I will take a look at the copyright policy, thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2023

Citations required for the final paragraph in the introduction. AHerur (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEADCITE:

The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.

Is there something specific in the lead that's not cited in the body? Nemov (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Force-feeding reports revisited

It is strange how users are removing sourced info regarding reports on force-feedings, including coverage about DeSantis' own statements and a second detainee. The sources supporting these reports are WP:GREL and inclusion should be permitted through WP:NOTABLE. The only concern should be how to present this information, which is now widely available in sources, in a WP:NPOV manner in accordance to WP:BLP. Simón, el Silbón (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

You may not like the previous discussion, but it has been discussed. The information is mentioned in this article. The allegation is cited. Is there a reason DeSantis' denial needs to be mentioned? Nemov (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it has not really been discussed, you have personally dismissed that DeSantis had any role in force-feeding when he said himself that the officials asked for his advice and his advise was that force-feeding was legal. To add context into the body and provide attribution to the force-feeding decision, we can also write the information similar to how The Washington Post presents the information. This would help us present the WP:NOTABLE information in a WP:NPOV manner if we followed their lead.

The Washington Post writes:

"'How do I combat this?' a commanding officer asked in 2006, as DeSantis recalled in an interview he gave years later to a local CBS television station. 'Hey, you actually can force-feed,' DeSantis said he responded in his role as a legal adviser. 'Here’s what you can do. Here’s kind of the rules for that.' Ultimately, it was the Pentagon’s decision to authorize force-feeding. ... Independent groups have decried their treatment, with the U.N. Commission on Human Rights concluding that force-feeding amounted to torture, and the International Committee of the Red Cross reaching a similar conclusion about overall conditions at the prison — both claims that the U.S. military has denied."

So, in the article, something can be written similar to:

In early 2006, DeSantis arrived at Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO), working directly with detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. The records of his service in the Navy were often redacted upon release to the public, to protect personal privacy, according to the Navy. DeSantis later stated that while serving as an advisor, he advised commanders that force-feeding detainees was legal, with commanders proceeding to force-feed detained individuals who were hunger striking at Guantanamo. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights and attorneys for the detainees at Guantanamo said that the force-feedings were torture, though the United States military has disagreed. Two individuals who were held at Guantanamo, Mansur Ahmad Saad al-Dayfi in 2022 and Ahmed Ould Abdel Aziz in 2023, alleged that DeSantis oversaw force-feedings of detainees.

This would be a much more accurate outline of DeSantis' time at Guantanamo as reported by WP:GREL sources (Snopes has also covered this as well). The UN and attorneys POV is important because the force feedings were controversial and WP:NOTABLE enough to warrant a UN investigation. This info is also presented in The Washington Post source. So, anything less than what is presented above would essentially be whitewashing, so sorry if you don't like that.

Also, pinging users previously involved in this conversation: @Anythingyouwant: @SPECIFICO: @JArthur1984: @Fastidiously: @Aquillion: @Iamreallygoodatcheckers: @Sceptre: @Die Kunst Der Fuge: @Thalia42:. Simón, el Silbón (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• I support the proposed edit. The CBS interview is significant because DeSantis admitted giving legal advice about force-feeding (his argument is that such conduct was legal). JArthur1984 (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I also support the proposed edit for the same reason. His admission is important, new information that really contextualizes the al-Dayfi allegations. Fastidiously (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Speaking generally, not necessarily about this instance. Because this is a WP:BLP and these are serious allegations, we have to be very careful with how they are included. We cannot word it "John Smith accused Jack Reacher of torture. Reacher has denied these allegations", because the response would be "He would say that, wouldn't he?" (WP:Mandy Rice-Davies applies). Curbon7 (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The "He would say that, wouldn't he?" point is why I noted in my comment that it is particular significant here that in the CBS interview that Washington post discusses, DeSantis admits giving legal advice about force-feeding (his position was that it was legal - a denial about characterization of the activity, not a denial of advising about force feeding). So while I understand the general observation, it would not apply here. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose proposed change. The status quo states what is known at this time with due weight. Nothing has really changed since this was discussed previously. Adding what's already included seems to lean on recentism. Also, the POV of the UN would be perfectly fine for the force-feeding article, but presenting it here in a WP:BLP is undue. If something more significant develops from this story we can revisit. Characterizing the status quo as whitewashing seems to an effort to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS instead of attempting to genuinely improve the biography. Nemov (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Not an attempt to right great wrongs, but to provide all relevant details to the biography of an individual. This is an attempt to find consensus amongst users in a neutral way. Your comments of "You may not like it" is a personal attack that is not civil, especially when this new information covered by multiple generally reliable sources was not discussed in previous talks. In addition, the Washington Post found the position of the UN relevant enough while directly discussing DeSantis, so your argument of it being undue (along with your personal attack) makes your position on this topic dubious. Simón, el Silbón (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Your comment above literally frames the opposing argument as "you don't like that" so please quit obfuscating the issue. Nemov (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, then let us stay civil then for the future. Thank you! Simón, el Silbón (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Just a note:

you have personally dismissed that DeSantis had any role in force-feeding.

I have done no such thing, please strike this since it's false. Nemov (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support: Supporting as user who proposed edit.--Simón, el Silbón (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose because I don't think the proposed text properly reflects the cited sources, especially this one: Hall, Richard (March 17, 2023). "Former Guantanamo prisoner: Ron DeSantis watched me being tortured". The Independent. Retrieved March 17, 2023. The United Nations has characterised the force-feeding of hunger strikers at Guantanamo Bay as torture. The US government has denied that the practice amounts to torture, and it has been used against prisoners over successive administrations during hunger strikes.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose on status quo grounds but with appreciation to Simón for their work. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Covid age adjusted

"Florida's age-adjusted death rate for COVID-19 remained near the national average,"

this is spin. governors dont get to choose the age of their states' population and must serve all citizens. his decision to not follow recommended public health measures cost lives of the most vulnerable.

this should be edited to report the non age adjusted death rate Gtewallace (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

this should be edited to report the non age adjusted death rate

You don't really have a compelling argument to make this change. Is there some guidline you'd like to us to follow or is there a better source? Nemov (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

There are no citations for this section of the introduction regarding the COVID death rate, economic growth, or population growth. There should be citations for all of these claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.175.216 (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

It's cited in the body of the article. Nemov (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation

DeSantis pronouces his own name as /diːˈsæntɪs/ ("dee santis") a lot of the time (but not all of the time) - is it worth adding a second IPA as FDR has?

See campaign launch here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWyGYUDNYl4&ab_channel=GuardianNews. There's plenty of other examples out there too. Doublekill10 (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Lawyer in lead sentence

@Johnbod, since I'm challenging inclusion please restore status quo. DeSantis isn't notable for being a lawyer so it shouldn't be mentioned in the lead sentence. This is kind of similar to Barack Obama. This is noted later in the article but the lead sentence should be reserved for the reason the person is notable. Nemov (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

(ec)Where on earth did you get that idea? That "the lead sentence should be reserved for the reason the person is notable" is not our normal practice at all. Policy for your assertion please! Should I suspect POV issues since your version keeps in his military service, for which he is certainly not notable, but removes that he was a lawyer, when in fact his entire period in the army was spent behind a desk, being a lawyer. The "status quo" is before your removal of "lawyer". Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Please review the edits. It was added today. Nemov (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn’t mind if “lawyer” is in the body but not the lead. Alternatively, the lead could say “military lawyer” instead of “military officer”. Either way works for me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

"Military lawyer" would be ok with me, since he never seems to have practiced otherwise. Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

MOS:FIRSTBIO, "First Sentence", says first sentence should have "One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, ..." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Exactly - they don't have to be "notable" for each. Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

He's not a noteworthy lawyer. Just like President Obama wasn't a noteworthy lawyer. These two are noteworthy for being politicians. Nemov (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

(For the 2nd time) He's not notable as a military officer, nor "noteworthy" (you mean "notable", right). Putting one in and objecting to the other seems very POV to me. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand your argument for inclusion. Nemov (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh dear, that's a pity! Neutrality, in a word. You wanted to call him a military officer, wrapping him in the flag, but wanted to remove him being a lawyer, unpopular with many people, when in fact he was both at the same time, and including his training spent more time as a lawyer than as a military officer. Does that help? Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Nope. You appear confused about what I've written here. Nemov (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

We appear to have a rough consensus that both “military” and “lawyer” can be removed from the opening paragraph, but that only removing one or the other would not work well. So I’ll make the edit today or tomorrow unless someone else does first. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering if "American Politician" might be enough. No one would know who he is except for being in politics. Nemov (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The second sentence after the opening paragraph says he went to law school, and the third sentence says says he was a legal advisor, so that should be sufficient regarding the fact that he's a lawyer. How about if we remove "former military officer" from the opening sentence? He's not mainly known for that. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I would support it reading similar to President Obama. Nemov (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

that would be "...and worked as a military lawyer before holding public office" as the end of the first para. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography:

The noteworthy position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph. However, avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-noteworthy roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph.

I don't think serving in the military is (or was) "integral to the person's notability". Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

List of firsts in preamble?

Should there be a mention in the preamble, of the potential achievement of becoming the first Italian-American president, should he be successful? Also he would be the youngest president and first born in the 1970's (Gen X). It could be phrased as contingent upon winning, as the Hillary Clinton article mentioned that she would have been the first female etc. 203.46.132.214 (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean, by that metric, I could be the first Italian-American president. So no. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

DeSantis is 44. Teddy Roosevelt became president at 42. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Useless trivia. Curbon7 (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Not only is it useless trivia, but it's not true, since you know, he's not actually president. Might be relevant to mention like in Hillary Clinton's article if he becomes the nominee, I guess. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Age-adjusted mortality & life expectancy

Florida has a large elderly population, so adjusting for age is useful for comparison with other states. See "Florida's COVID-19 deaths are still among the highest in the nation". WUSF Public Media. October 14, 2021. Retrieved March 25, 2023. “When looking at all COVID-19 deaths in the state, the age-adjusted mortality rate per 100,000 has Florida ranked 24th in the nation. The New York Times analysis places Florida's overall death rate as the 10th highest in the nation”

The idea that Florida deaths have been near the national average (adjusting for age) is also reflected in life-expectancy figures. According to the CDC, life expectancy during 2020 dropped in Florida to 77.5 years from 79 years in 2019; that fall of 1.5 years in Florida was less than the nationwide fall of 1.8 years. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

State / Life Expectancy Years

1. Hawaii 80.7

2. Minnesota 79.1

3. Vermont 78.8

4. Washington 79.2

5. New Hampshire 79

6. Utah 78.6

7. Colorado 78.3

8. Massachusetts 79

9. California 79

10. Oregon 78.8

source: CDC April 2023.

These are the states with the highest full vaccination rates:

1. Rhode Island (87.1%)

2. Vermont (85.0%)

3. Massachusetts (83.6%)

4. Maine (82.8%)

5. Connecticut (82.6%)

6. Hawaii (81.1%)

7. New York (80.2%)

8. Maryland (79.2%)

9. New Jersey (78.6%)

10. Virginia (76.1%)

Source: CDC Dec 2022.

Question: Where is Florida?

Assertion: Propaganda for anti-vax is not part of Wikipedia’s remit.

Note: slice and dice data all you like, but Florida killed more people than states that tried covid controls.

Fact: per capita, Florida’s mortality rate was only exceeded by other anti-lockdown states with less capable healthcare systems. Jason Notary 18:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnotary (talk • contribs)

Reliable sources (and common sense) say the *change* in life expectancy during the pandemic is what’s relevant to the handling of covid. I don’t think your numbers describe any change. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Florida is in the bottom 12 per capita for mortality, and the Top 10 are all smaller states lacking sufficient healthcare resources using Statista.

Look at the CDC and we see the only other large state that chose to be irresponsible with human life is Texas.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/covid19_mortality_final/COVID19.htm Jason Notary 19:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnotary (talk • contribs)

• Here's an article ranking COVID deaths after adjusting for age[6]. There hasn't been much written about this, but it makes sense given Florida's average age. Nemov (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks,

  Looking at “COVID-19 Mortality by State” CDC dataset, sort it to lowest mortality and it aligns nicely to the vaccine rate to each state.

  Although Florida’s background death rate is similar to other states with legislatures that are ‘hands off’ on Healthcare, any State that did actively go about Covid mandates appears to have feared better in all demographics.

  personally I hated lock down, but I love Science and Facts, so I’m not keen on the idea of making it look good to be anti-science by splitting hairs to try and say Lockdowns were pointless, look at Florida. It’s simply not true when looking at facts. Jason Notary 19:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnotary (talk • contribs)

Travel advisory deletion

The NAACP was founded 114 years ago. On its Wikipedia page is a long standing travel advisory issued in 2017 regarding Missouri where African-American drivers were chronically subjected to being singled out, pulled over without cause, harrassed and far worse. It saw fit to issue a similar warning to travelers contemplating current travel to Florida, joining similar prior issuances by Equality Florida (founded 26 years ago) and LULAC (founded in 1929), for members also inclined to do so. WP currently is engrossed in hosting a substantially more detailed discussion on how DeSantis pronounces his last name, a subject of immense importance with which the reverting editor seems to not have a problem. I googled "NAACP" and "Florida Travel Advisory" and got 1,770,000 hits, so obviously a few people are paying attention. Spare us: We're not here to accomodate the DeSantis presidential campaign, channeling its momentously important p.r. The article contains mention of a posthumous though inconsequential pardon issued to an innocent black man murdered over 75 years ago by a posse that included over a thousand racists searching for him and three equallly innocent targets as supposed perpetrators of a reported but nonexistent crime. Time to put on our "big boy" pants. Activist (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think Google hit numbers are meaningful. But, I think this rare advisory by a respected organization, which we can see heavily covered in RS, is notable and deserves inclusion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• As I mentioned when I removed this information isn't central to the biography of Ron DeSantis. It could be perhaps mentioned on an article about the state of Florida. Just because something has been recently in the in the news doesn't automatically justify inclusion in a WP:BLP. Some of the other elements Activist's argument for inclusion appear to be comments attempting to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If they have issues with other content included in the article those could be discussed separately. Nemov (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see this as related to RGW, and it certainly is not a BLP vio. DeSantis is behind a flurry of new laws, which is a part of his anti-WOKE, as he puts it, fight in his campaign. (Which coincidentally just came on the TV as I am typing this.) He uses the term WOKE (African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination") in every speech; and this item relates. It is WP:NPOV, is heavily covered by WP:RS (even in the international press[7][8][9]) Forbes also discusses the economic related issues.[10] It appears to merit inclusion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  The following comment is specifically what I was referencing: Spare us: We're not here to accomodate the DeSantis presidential campaign, channeling its momentously important p.r.... The rest of my comments against inclusion strictly policy based. Nemov (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  BLP in no way applies. RGW is not a policy. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  Just FYI, WP:BLP says, "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts." Also, WP:Talk page guidelines says, "Do not use the talk page as a forum for discussing the topic, nor as a soapbox for promoting your views. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not venting your feelings about it." Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm fully aware of that. I still see no BLP vio and stand by what I said. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  This entire exchange is very confusing since no one claimed there's a BLP violation. I said coverage doesn't automatically justify inclusion in a BLP. If this biography included everything written by WP:RS about DeSantis it would go on forever. Nemov (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  It doesn't automatically justify inclusion in any article. The mistake was linking to BLP which is not relevant. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The item at the core of this issue is not immediately pertinent to the subject of this article, though time will tell if the travel advisory becomes something worthy of mention in an encyclopedic overview of DeSantis. I would encourage Objective3000 to refocus their continued involvement on Wikipedia away from talk page discussions—which have accounted for the vast majority of his contributions for the last six months—and instead into building an encyclopedia. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I would encourage you to avoid comments like this on article TPs. If you have a comment about me, the proper page is my TP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• This gives off WP:NOTNEWS vibes. The NAACP made a travel advisory against Florida... it's not an action or policy of Ron DeSantis. If it is to be mentioned, I'd imagine it would be very brief, but I don't think that is even warranted at this time. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 23:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Is Ron DeSantis Roman Catholic?

According to the Catholic magazine "America," Ron and Casey DeSantis rarely discuss their faith, and the authors could find no instance in which he described himself as a practicing Roman Catholic. A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly OK to describe him as "Catholic" in the personal life section. Other stories that touch upon his denominational identity (like this one) seem to take his Catholicism for granted. Not mentioning his religious identity in the infobox is probably a good move until we have certainty. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

There are several sources include Roll Call that list him as Catholic and he was married by a Catholic priest. It doesn't seem there's much doubt he's Catholic. Nemov (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

It's standard to not mention religious identity in the infobox. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 23:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Right, per template:Infobox officeholder, "Please note that in June 2017, the |religion= parameter was removed from Infobox officeholder as a result of this discussion." Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

AMEN.:) O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)