Jump to content

Talk:Ron DeSantis/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

COVID Age-Adjusted Death Rate in Lead

The Covid description in the lead, to me, has a WP:DUE/WP:NPOV issue. It currently says, Florida's age-adjusted death rate for COVID-19 remained near the national average, while Florida experienced above-average economic growth and the fastest population growth of any state in the country.

Now, there are surely sources that use similar reasoning. You can find op eds in The Wall Street Journal from 2021 [1] and The National Review column from four days ago [2] advancing it.

But ... it's really hard to argue that a majority of sources take that view. Given the prominence in the lead, one might think that searching "DeSantis Covid death rate" would lead to an avalanche of articles using the age-adjusted death rate. But ... not so: The first piece from a Columbia Law School program is a short post critiquing DeSantis's own critique of Florida's stats. But then we have to go through several op-eds (by the Palm Beach Post, The Washington Post, and the Miami Herald) discussing how high the Florida death rate was before we get to one article in the Mercury News, reporting on a study arguing that Florida over-performed given the age and health of its population. If you search "DeSantis covid", one of the first results is this Politico article, which both notes that Florida's vaccination rate is dropping and that, at its height, Florida accounted for one in five of the nation's new infections, but also that it had lower death rates than New York and New Jersey. Then, you have this Vox article which mentions both stats: Florida ranks 13th among states in deaths per capita. Adjusting deaths for age, the most important driver of fatalities in the pandemic, Florida was at best middle-of-the-road among states in its pandemic performance.

Now, I obviously have no issue with including both sides here ... but the lead takes a surprisingly strong decision to present one side, and I don't think that lines up with sources. To me, the sources seem quite split (and, if anything, based on what I've seen, more likely to highlight the negative). I think the lead needs to be rebalanced in light of those sources, but I realize this will be contentious, so I wanted to flag it here first. --Jerome Frank Disciple 01:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Based on the sources in this post I concur with OP. This feels too debatable to include, and to both-sides it would just be padding an already big-enough lead. I think removal is a good idea. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 01:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I'd also support removal; it does seem like there's a debate that can't easily be summed up in the lead. Just saying what his positions were (rather than limning the debate about their costs/effectiveness) seems more appropriate to me.--Jerome Frank Disciple 01:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
How COVID was handled is a big part of DeSantis's story. Based on the sources what happened? Florida was a little more lose with restrictions and the outcomes was comparable to other states. It's not debatable that Florida has one of the United States's oldest populations. The current copy adequately explains what happened, it's one of the biggest parts of DeSantis rise politically and it's properly sourced. I would understand the concern if there was reporting that challenged the claim, but so far there doesn't appear to be. Nemov (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
But to present the age-adjusted rate alone as if it's the only stat that matters ignores many—if not most—of the reliable sources covering the issue. To be completely blunt, in light of those sources and the very mixed reception DeSantis's policies have, I think the current line in the lead sounds more like campaign material rather than a Wikipedia article. By the way, I'm not sold on the body either: As of October 2021, Florida's age-adjusted death rate was the 24th-highest in the nation; from March 2020 through March 22, 2023, Florida had the 12th-highest rate in cases and deaths per 100,000 people among the 50 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, without adjusting for the age of Florida's large and vulnerable elderly population. ... Even that's adding an obvious "well this stat doesn't matter as much" slant to the second stat. Two articles are cited for those sentences—with the citations only coming at the end of the sentences. One article doesn't mention an age adjusted rate. The other quotes a Florida Department of Health official responding to a Democratic state senator. (Also, we should, in general, be very careful about using labels like "vulnerable"—that term isn't in either of the sources cited.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 01:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
The article quoting the Florida health official later says, "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." That's not a quote from the Florida health official, but rather in the voice of the reliable source, right? Prior to age-adjusted death rate, the lead focused on life expectancy. As the article body says, 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. We could simply recite in the lead deaths per 100,000 people but that does not reflect Florida's large elderly population whereas that's not a problem when we use age-adjusted rate or life expectancy. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah that's true! And to be clear—perhaps I should have emphasized this more on round 1—I absolutely think it's valid to include that number in the article! But (1) including it as if it's the only stat that matters in the lead reads like a campaign promotion; (2) the "large and vulnerably elderly population" line in the body (and, really, the framing of that entire sentence) is a little ridiculous. Why not just say "the death rate was X in the nation, but the age-adjusted death rate was Y in the nation"?
In terms of the lead, I think ser had the best idea: chop the effects from the lead. (I'd also suggest dropping the March 2021 law ... since I think that's repetitive to the first sentence.) That would make the paragraph:

As governor, DeSantis resisted taking many of the measures to slow the spread of COVID-19 that various other state governments implemented, such as face-mask mandates, stay-at-home orders, and vaccination requirements. DeSantis cut state-government spending, which, combined with federal stimulus payments and high sales-tax revenue, led to the largest budget surplus in Florida history. He engaged in recovery efforts after Hurricane Ian and Hurricane Nicole, and oversaw the passage of the controversial Parental Rights in Education Act. He was reelected in a landslide in the 2022 Florida gubernatorial election; his 19.4% margin of victory over Charlie Crist was the state's largest in 40 years.

But I've said enough here so I'll let everyone else chip in :) --Jerome Frank Disciple 02:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
The vulnerability of senior citizens to Covid is central to this discussion, not propaganda at all, User:Jerome Frank Disciple. Consider a source we don't cite yet: Woolfolk, John. “Why major study argues Florida’s COVID death rate compares favorably to California’s”, The Mercury News (April 2, 2023). That source says, Florida’s older, unhealthier population contributed to its higher number of deaths… COVID-19 is deadlier among the aged and diseased…. With an adjustment to show what it would look like if each state had the same age and health profile as the United States as a whole, Florida’s death rate jumped to 12th lowest, while California’s fell to 36th. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Mate, you're linking to a source that I linked and summarized above. (one article in the Mercury News, reporting on a study arguing that Florida over-performed given the age and health of its population) Safe to say I've considered it. But it's not for us to decide who's right ... it is for us to follow WP:DUE, which the lead currently does not do.--Jerome Frank Disciple 02:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I misunderstood your methodology, and I'm not sure even now that I understand your methodology. When you said above, "we have to go through several op-eds", I thought you meant "go through" in this BLP. But, maybe you meant go through in a Google search? You think that the Mercury News's appearance lower down in a google search than some op-eds means it's less notable? I disagree entirely. News stories are inherently more notable for us than op-eds. Especially news stories that go in depth based on detailed scientific studies. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to leave it here, but I didn't mean to imply it was only op eds that focused on the death rate. See, for example, the Miami Herald article we cite on this subject. As to your other comments, you're confusing terms. It has nothing to do with notability—which is a standard to determine whether a subject is deserving of an article. Our coverage should generally emphasize facts and viewpoints in rough proportion to the attention those facts/viewpoints are given in reliable sources. The lead currently picks the age-adjusted death rate, by which Florida was roughly average, and emphasizes that fact alone, even though most sources seem to focus on just the death rate (and on which Florida's was one of the worst in the country). (That said, as I noted, there are sources, like the Vox story, which mention both, although Vox's take is still decisively negative.) The point of the Google search wasn't to say "well higher ranking means this source has to trump all the ones below it!" It was to take a survey of sources and see how those sources framed the costs/effectiveness of DeSantis's policies. Based on that survey, I agree with ser that there's a controversy regarding their effectiveness that's too difficult to limn in the lead.--Jerome Frank Disciple 02:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
The Miami Herald article is no longer used as a cite for age-adjusted. However, I agree it might be useful to say in the lead that Florida's death rate is much higher without the age-adjustment. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Bold edit to lead

I have modified what the lead says about the death rate, to this: "Florida's death rate for COVID-19, after age adjustment, remained near the national average, but Florida exceeded the national average if no such adjustment is made for the virus's deadly effect upon elderly people, who disproportionately reside in that state." Also added two references to the pertinent part of the article body. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Even that's a really weird way of phrasing it. Like, it's clearly trying to downplay the the raw death rate. First, you can just say death rate. It makes no sense to say age adjusted death rate first and then be like "and non-age-adjusted death rate." Second, "exceeded the national average" is not the tone of sources cited or listed above. I mean, look at the title of some of the sources you've added. Again, this is a due weight and NPOV issue.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I disagree there’s a significant due weight issue. Sources that omitted age adjustment do not contradict sources that included age-adjustment, and the sources that include both are the most reliable sources because they go into greater detail. I also disagree with your insistence upon removing the reason for the difference: Florida has a lot of old people and old people were more vulnerable. Readers will not benefit from that omission of information which is well-sourced, accurate, and easy to understand. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
It actually wasn't well sourced; it was connected to the sentence with the Miami Herald link, but that link didn't discuss Florida's "old and vulnerable" population at all. I'll re-add it, but where it should be—with the age adjusted info. By the way, I still think none of this should be in the lead.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
It was in the lead as well. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
We don't need to replicate the body in the lead. It's okay to have a summary. The very fact that the age-adjusted rate is distinct is enough—why else would an age-adjusted rate be distinct?--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
This will not be obvious to readers. It may be distinct because DeSantis decided to ignore old people and just protect young people. There is no harm whatsoever in briefly saying in the lead that old people are more vulnerable and Florida has lots of them. The cited sources certainly say so. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
The point is that only the ones bringing up the age-adjusted rate do. And you keep saying "well sourced" in reference to things that aren't well sourced. When I first raised flags here, I pointed out that none of the sources cited used the term "vulnerable". I also disagree that it needs to be in the lead. Again, I agree with ser that this entire discussion of effects should be taken out of the lead, but I'll let this discussion develop. We should get a consensus one way or the other.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I’ve already pointed out that your objection regarding the word “vulnerable” is incorrect. It is merely a synonym of words used by reliable sources. For example, those sources say correctly that, “Florida’s older, unhealthier population contributed to its higher number of deaths ... COVID-19 is deadlier among the aged and diseased.” This is well-known, and I think you know it. But if you don’t, how can you expect readers to assume it? Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Three readers now agree it should be removed from the lead; you disagree. We should stop bludgeoning and let the convo go on.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
It's unlikely there's going to be much progress here with so much wall of text devoted to what is seemingly a small issue. Just remove the death data from the lead and mention it in the body. Nemov (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Done.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • It might make sense to remove the death rates stuff from the lead. It seems like much of the negative press about Florida's COVID rules focused on the general death rate in comparison to other states without acknowledging Florida's demographics. This could be fleshed out in the body of the article explaining that death rates were higher without factoring in the aging population. The lead can mention the COVID policies without making a statement about the death rates which seems continuous.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemov (talk • contribs)
The Covid death rate in Florida is central to his biography. DeSantis was able to keep it near or below the national average without draconian measures that were being recommended by federal agencies. This is why he was re-elected by a landslide. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I think that comment reveals that your POV is strong enough here that it's maybe shading your ability to follow WP:NPOV and WP:DUE.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
You accuse me above of “bludgeoning”, and now this. You are mistaken. I agree with Nemov’s comment above that “How COVID was handled is a big part of DeSantis's story. Based on the sources what happened? Florida was a little more lose with restrictions and the outcomes was comparable to other states.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
His actions as governor are what made him popular in Florida. The out of context death rates have been used by critics of DeSantis. I don't think the death rates are central to his story, it the polices during COVID that the story. Nemov (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I predict it will be impossible to keep the non-age-adjusted death rate out of the lead, and if it is in the lead then so should be the age-adjusted death rate, with a few words as to why they are different (Florida’s large & vulnerable elderly population). And how do we describe the outcome without any death rate? Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Regarding my use of the word “draconian” above at this talk page, I obviously was not suggesting to use that word in this BLP. It’s also obvious that the COVID policies recommended by the federal government were relatively draconian compared to those implemented in Florida. Additionally, Dr. Fauci has repeatedly characterized them as draconian: “you have to do something that’s rather draconian…. sometimes when you do draconian things, it has collateral negative consequences.”[3] I don’t think it’s biased of me to say “draconian” at this talk page when comparing federal Covid policy to Florida Covid policy (nor if I were to use that word as Fauci did to describe federal Covid policy more generally). That is not to say there are no other instances of bias at this talk page, but I hope not on my part. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
That use of "draconian" by Dr. Fauci was in reference to NY hospitals filling up. Indeed, they had refrigerator trucks in the parking lots to hold the dead bodies. Fox and the NYPost took several phrases from different parts of a lengthy interview and shoved them to ether into one thought. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Can you please link to the transcript or video from September 2022? Fauci had been advocating “draconian” measures as early as 2020, in relation to states other than New York.[4] Anyway, I merely used the term here in a comparative way, which IMHO was totally legit. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
My mistake, thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Force feeding reports

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a clear consensus to maintain the current version. Although the RFC has not expired yet, there have been no comments in a week , the outcome is clear, and formal closure has been requested I've wrapped this up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


Regarding the issue surrounding the reports, which previously did not achieve a consensus, three options are proposed:

Thank you, Simón, el Silbón (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Option 3 The force-feeding information is already included in the article with due weight. It's not really clear why this topic deservers a larger mention or how the first two options could improve the article. Adding to 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, but for now the status quo was approved via consensus and is perfectly reasonable. Nemov (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3: There has not been a whole lot of published analysis of this, such as analysis of whether DeSantis would have been disbarred and kicked out of the Navy if he had falsely stated what U.S. government policy was. According to our footnoted sources, “The US government has denied that the practice amounts to torture, and it has been used against prisoners over successive administrations during hunger strikes.” The proposed language does not reflect this. Moreover, there’s been no confirmation in reliable sources that DeSantis was involved with the particular one or two prisoners who now accuse him, even if he did have to deal with the hunger strike issue. Additionally, DeSantis has said, “you actually had three detainees who committed suicide with hunger strikes,” but I’m not aware of any reporting about whether those one or two accusers would now be dead if not for force-feeding. Given the dearth and superficiality of the reporting thus far, our present treatment of the matter seems okay. Maybe the reporting has been that way because the military has not released enough info, or because what DeSantis did was routine and he had no choice in the matter. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    I don't follow this closely but it's worth mentioning that superior orders are not a defense for war crimes, including torture of a detainee if that is what deSantis was involved in. Contrary to what is claimed force-feeding is widely regarded as torture, not just by the UN. For example, it's banned by the World Medical Association. (t · c) buidhe 17:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
    It may depend to some extent upon whether the procedure is painful, whether it results in severe bleeding, whether it spreads disease, whether it’s conducted with dirty equipment, and/or whether the prisoner intends to continue the hunger strike until death. But we don’t have any reliable sources that discuss any of these factors as they pertain to DeSantis. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 (Summoned by bot) Given that the section is rather small, the proposal seems undue weight. However, it may be okay to include just the name of the second accuser as well, if a good source exists for it. There wasnt one in the proposal, so cant say for certain. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
    Would an Option 2 with the name of the second accuser be appropriate? The Option 2 is to propose NPOV and balanced wording if Option 1 was not suitable. Simón, el Silbón (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
    replied below Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3. There is no clear reason for expanding. Introducing the UN's POV in a WP:BLP is undue, and the lack of substantial analysis and reliable sources supports this further. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - expansion would be WP:UNDUE at this point. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 22:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - Seems everyone above me disagrees, but given the size of the article, a single paragraph about the force feeding doesn't look WP:UNDUE to me. It would be undue to do any more than that one paragraph, but the coverage looks like enough to justify a brief mention. Fieari (talk) 05:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Looking at the BLP concerns raised by users, a modified version would be appropriate, which could include:
    • Original content that is present
    • DeSantis' role in his own words
    • The report about the second accuser (which is strangely absent despite widespread coverage)
    • Exclusion of UN and "torture" wording
Does this modified option sound better @Nemov, Anythingyouwant, Buidhe, CapnJackSp, Fad Ariff, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, and Fieari:? We can add/take away from this proposed list as well. Simón, el Silbón (talk) 07:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I have no change to my previous comment. Unless additional information or reporting adds more weight to this story the status quo is sufficient. Nemov (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
The BLP currently says, “Mansur Ahmad Saad al-Dayfi, who was held at Guantanamo, alleged in 2022 that DeSantis oversaw force-feedings of detainees.” It might be worthwhile to consider updating this a bit, e.g. like this: “In 2018, DeSantis described part of his job as advising about the legality of force-feeding for preventing suicidal hunger strikes by detainees. Several years later, two former detainees at Guantanamo alleged that DeSantis had overseen force-feedings of detainees, although DeSantis subsequently cast doubt upon their accounts.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that's an improvement either. Nemov (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Im not sure if the bundle of changes you proposed would be an improvement, though as stated earlier Im fine with adding the name of the second accuser. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alphabetical order

Seems kind of messy for all the different issues he’s dealt with as governor to be in random order. Alphabetize? Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The tenure section is still kind of a mess. If you review articles like Zell Miller, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan the governor portion of the biography is only a handful of paragraphs. We could spin out another article titled Governorship of Ron DeSantis. This would reduce the section to a few paragraphs and put much of this in the other article. Nemov (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't think I'll have time to draft a new article for a few weeks, but it's something I can add to the list. Nemov (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Nemov, that's great. It gives some time for you to identify what's really just notable as an aspect of his governorship rather than something that should be on his main article. Will be a great way to reduce bloat. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Seconded.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
It's loosely based of prominence. So I don't think it's necessary to alphabetize. I'm not opposed to a rewrite or shortening. Sounds like a good idea. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 03:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Governorship of Ron DeSantis

I've created an article for Governorship of Ron DeSantis. The next step would to be chop down the Governor of Florida (2019–present). Any help summarizing this section would be greatly appreciated. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Noticed you've started. Thanks for the heads up. I think you know better than anyone else here what ought to stay and what can go to the new article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Looks good. My only request is that we please leave enough in the article body to support what’s in the lead. Or trim the lead. One or the other. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
No objection there. This article should only cover what's central to the biography. I carved out stuff from the tenue I didn't think was central. I may have removed stuff that some may think is central and I may have left stuff in that doesn't belong, but at least it's in a place where it can be summarized much easier. The coverage of the the elections needs to be summarized and folded into the election articles as well. Nemov (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Time at Yale

Need to add membership in St. Elmo secret society to early life and education. 2600:1702:5345:2010:0:0:0:40 (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

It’s already mentioned at St. Elmo (secret society) without any citation, and you haven’t given any citation either. Why is it significant, especially for not one but two Wikipedia articles? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Source is here: https://thecapitolist.com/the-wrap-is-ron-desantis-a-member-of-skull-and-bones-is-he-anti-vax-is-florida-a-low-vax-state/. This is crucial to the Wikipedia page given DeSantis's history and relationship with elite institutions. 41.60.167.35 (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
This fall significantly short on being a reliable source and that's before even considering if it's significant enough to be mentioned in this biography. Nemov (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Despite The Capitolist's funding history, the online news source has reported accurately about local Florida politics in Tallahassee for years. The Capitalist cites a source near to the governor. Further sources here: https://www.missinformational.com/post/part-ii-the-secret-sordid-dark-history-of-ron-desantis, from a factchecking archive, confirm DeSantis's membership. A politician's affiliations with Ivy League secret institutions is germane to their public profile. Furthermore, repeated scrubbing and removal of this information from the St. Elmo's page going back to the 2020's behoove editors at Wikipedia to not succumb to obfuscation efforts. Listing membership on both the society and DeSantis's page can reduce the likelihood of campaign influence on an objective Wiki profile. 41.60.167.35 (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Potential for ungulate jokes aside, I think we should hold off on making reference to supposed membership in a student secret society until a source more reliable than The Capitolist is mustered. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Web archives from 2021 list DeSantis membership (found here: web.archive.org/web/20210512210525/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Elmo_%28secret_society%29), long before my edits were proposed. I suspect there is more potential for jokes regarding your long history of right-wing biased edits considering the lengths you went to also scrub the St. Elmo (secret society) page, despite sourced edits. Please consider the evidence at hand in a more objective manner. 41.60.167.35 (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I encourage you to my successive replies to you elsewhere on this page (diff 1, diff 2). Not sure what long history you refer to, but I'm welcome to critique. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Time at Yale

Need to add membership to St. Elmo Secret Society during time at Yale. Citation is here: https://thecapitolist.com/the-wrap-is-ron-desantis-a-member-of-skull-and-bones-is-he-anti-vax-is-florida-a-low-vax-state/ . This information has been repeatedly scrubbed, likely by the DeSantis campaign. 41.60.167.35 (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I replied above, but I looked into this article and relevant additional material available on the web. There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that Ron DeSantis was ever a member of a secret society at Yale. According to The Capitolist article the IP editor linked, an unnamed source confirmed that DeSantis was not a member of one secret society while not ruling out membership other societies. The same article then references Wikipedia to support the claim that he was a member of St. Elmo; this claim was never referenced and was inserted in April 2020 by a now-indefinitely blocked user. This is an open-and-shut case of citogenesis–see WP:CIRCULAR for the relevant policy. Don't worry, The Capitolist wasn't the only place to cite Wikipedia for this claim. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Also, IP @41.60.167.35: this edit suggests you have a keen interest in baseball, not terribly unlike the blocked Wangerfamily (see this edit). Welcome back; please do not insert unreliable/unsourced information onto biographies of living people. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Struck comment. Looking at a different baseball IP and got confused. IP and Wangerfamily are probably different. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

He’s grandparents was illegal

Now he is again to the ilegal people 2600:1013:B02C:8CA4:9555:B44E:9514:889A (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting an edit that we may perform on your behalf? If so, please provide a source and the changes you'd like made.Thank you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Abortion ban

Since @AlsoWukai reverted[5] for a 2nd time I'll bring it up here. I changed the word "ban" to regulation. I understand why the word ban is used politically and sensationally, but it's confusing in this instance because abortion is legal in Florida with some restrictions. This is like characterizing a speed limit or gun regulation as a ban. A ban is synonymous with prohibition and it shouldn't' be used unless there's a prohibition against abortion. I should note, this section is likely being moved to a separate article that's currently being drafted that focuses on the Govenorship of Ron DeSantis. Nemov (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

"Bans" is more informative than "regulates" in this context. "Abortion is legal in Florida with some restrictions" is less accurate than "abortion is banned in Florida with some exceptions". To get a sense of what RS are saying, I checked the first few reliable results on a news search for "florida abortion ron desantis", and all three use ban ([6], [7], [8]). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
"Abortion is legal in Florida with some restrictions" is less accurate than "abortion is banned in Florida with some exceptions". States and countries all over the world have abortion regulations set around number of weeks. These regulation generally range from 6 to 15 weeks. France's 14 week regulation isn't a ban. Why would 6 weeks be a ban? This leads to confusion because when people see "ban" they think prohibition. Explaining the regulation is far clearer than slapping the word ban on things that aren't probibited. Reliable sources aren't immune from bias and it's more accurate and neutral to call this what it actually is and that's a regulation. Nemov (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I think the language that was there until the most recent changes makes the most sense: it's accurate to say a certain type of abortions (those which occur after six weeks) are banned with exceptions. I think it's a tidier way of conveying the same point, rather than saying "they are regulated, these are the regulations". ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I have to agree with the logic that use of the word "regulate" seems to be more accurate. When I hear the word ban I do think complete regulation. Where as 6 weeks is a regulation. MaximusEditor (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Papers of record and media on all sides of the aisle have described the abortion politics in Florida, Texas, and other states as “bans with exceptions.” “Regulation” obfuscates the policy and inaccurately portrays the level of medical leniency given to providers during the gestation period post-six weeks. When procedures are only allowed as exceptions to an overlaying policies, not openly allowed with certain limitations, the word “ban” is much more accurate in both the medical and policy sense. Cheers. 41.60.172.87 (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments on slavery

https://www.businessinsider.com/desantis-says-black-people-benefited-from-skills-learned-in-slavery-2023-7

Why isn't this mentioned in the article? Could be included in the critical race theory/education views section. I can add it if need be, but just curious, because this seems to be quite newsworthy and notable. conman33 (. . .talk) 16:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:BUSINESSINSIDER, I'd like to see another source mustered on this. If multiple reliable source cover these comments, we can definitely consider inclusion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Falls into wp:recent territory for me. It's not central to his biography unless this receives significant coverage for weeks. Nemov (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Corresponding statements from WaPo here -- but the full quote is not as clear -- DeSantis says he wasn't involved in the curriculum making himself, says "You should talk to them about it. I didn’t do it. I wasn’t involved in it." twitter thread
If it ends up being added, it would slot in well into the 'critical race theory' section.

Maximilian775 (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't know about the Business Insider Wikipedia guideline, too. Other sources have it covered too. Thanks all. conman33 (. . .talk) 19:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS. Also, Business Insider is not good enough to be used in this context. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 00:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Right. Business Insider hasn't won a Pulitzer Prize since last year. Any claim that they have toward being a RSS pales in comparison to the credibility rightfully earned by being (self-proclaimed) "really good" at checkers. Activist (talk) 07:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. By the way, the Pulitzer was for a cartoon. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
@Activist: Disparaging a consensus decision on reliable sourcing and making a snide remark about someone's username are both strategies unlikely to persuade anyone. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Why are we discussing Business Insider? This theory of DeSantis' and the widespread associated condemnation was covered at length by all mainstream media. SPECIFICO talk 23:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Partially because only the Insider and a single WashPo story have been linked. If you have found references, link them here or in the article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
abbondanza. SPECIFICO talk 00:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Sourcing isn't really the issue. It's WP:NOTNEWS/WP:RECENT... unless something else happens this is likely forgotten in a few weeks. Nemov (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree. SPECIFICO talk 00:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
After reading through the discussion I also agree its Not News/Recent issue, not so much to do with sourcing. MaximusEditor (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Break

If anyone has a way they want to articulate this, please put it below here to keep it separate from the discussion above, which is mostly oriented towards the use of a deprecated source (which we have no reason to use nor discuss further). I don't see a good way to put this into the article now but considering that the metapieces on the subject are coming out this week, I think we'll have a good sense in the next few days. Please also add specific sources below. Note that per this CNN piece this is still a developing story with him continuing to add more commentary. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

If we cover it in this main BLP, I’d just let him speak (and deny) for himself: “[T]hat particular passage wasn’t saying that slavery was a benefit. It was saying there was resourcefulness, and people acquired skills in spite of slavery, not because of it.” We also might want to discuss including his recent suggestion that he’d pardon Trump. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
It's not an allegation to be denied, and this isn't the place to promote his attemped erasure. SPECIFICO talk 02:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
What erasure? Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
The CNN thing is about Ron Peri. The pardon stuff would be fine at the political positions article. Neither are really important enough to mention on this biography for the reasons I've already outlined. Nemov (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Repeated Word

“On May 24, 2023, DeSantis announced announced”

Repeated word in the introduction. Article is protected so I cannot fix this, if anyone has permission, please do so. BradCow (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Well spotted; have removed. Thanks! ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 12:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2023

lets not spread misinformation. the last person edited the page to say "Ron is 5 ft 7 in (170.18 cm) tall." this is clearly a political troll. if people put information on the site, they need to cite the source. please remove this line or provide a source PMTWIGG11 (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done removed as unsourced Cannolis (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2023

The military rank seems to be wrong and conflicting. It is lieutenant not “lieutenant commander” 173.73.71.244 (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done He achieved the rank of lieutenant commander—please see this CBS News piece. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Wedding

I just added the last five words to this material:

My edit summary: “Adding five words re. wedding. This makes the sentence fit better with the preceding sentence. Many people may not realize that Disney does Catholic weddings. And we don’t discuss his wife’s religion so it’s otherwise not clear what type of ceremony it was.” Please note that the article has said for many months what type of wedding ceremony it was, up until this week. Instead of restoring the longstanding language (“and the marriage was officiated by a Catholic priest”), I condensed it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I found no evidence his marriage was actually Catholic, as the Catholic Church does not permit marriages to be held outside of church premises without the bishop’s dispensation, which is not given based on personal preferences of the couple. The diocese in that area does not permit marriages to be performed in Disneyland. The term ‘Catholic marriage’ is confusing to Catholics who are familiar with Church law, and if presided over by anyone else than a Catholic priest (or deacon) with canonical faculties, it is null and void in the eyes of the Catholic Church. The validity of his marriage in the eyes of the Catholic Church should be looked into, before it is referred to as a Catholic marriage. 2A06:C701:7758:9C00:D149:74DF:66A4:5072 (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Dispensation norms vary widely over the years–my parents got married in chapel under a dispensation that is no longer granted by the current ordinary. The DeSantis's wedding was officiated by a licit Catholic priest and is described as a Catholic ceremony in reliable source media, so we can confidently say that his wedding was Catholic. However, if you find some reliable sourcing that explicitly states the wedding was celebrated outside of Catholic canonical permissions, we can discuss this further. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Gambling Expansion

Added a section 12/4 about DeSantis and the reworking of a gaming compact with the Seminole Tribe (involvement with casino and sports betting expansion) and the lawsuits happening around it... It was removed - just looking for any feedback as to why or what I could do different. I approached it with an unbiased factual mindset and linked out to official sources. Squeak41 (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I thought the note left by the editor was helpful. This type of thing fits better at Governorship of Ron DeSantis. Nemov (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
thank you! I don't think I saw that Squeak41 (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, Squeak41. I should have pinged you in my edit summary; I'm glad Nemov mentioned what I said! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Pardon

The pardon issued to the Groveland Four was inconsequential and politically risk-free. After an extensive search, I only found a few mentions of it after the month in which it was issued almost five years ago. There was no evidence of an actual crime, but one supposed perpetrator was tracked down to the Florida Panhandle and, after being found sleeping under a tree, was shot an estimated 400 times. Another youth whose conviction of the alleged offense had been pulled out of the Sheriff's auto while supposedly attempting to escape, and killed after a pair of those charged had their cases overturned on appeal. The other was shot by the Sheriff and escaped being murdered as well by playing dead after being grievously wounded. The two convicted survivors who were pardoned had been dead for decades before the pardon was issued. This was a pointless, politically risk-free gesture, well-received only by a few survivors of a couple of victims of the out-of-control, racist, 1940's law enforcement. Activist (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

You made this same change without consensus in April and it was discussed[9]. Nothing has changed since April. Nemov (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ron_DeSantis/Archive_7&oldid=1250495763"