Talk:Ron DeSantis

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.[1] 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[2] "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.”[3] 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)

proposed new portrait

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

old portrait

new proposal

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

• Oppose: Current image is superior. Lighting in the new image has far more subdued coloring, a steeper and lower angle, and has him partially bladed to the camera. I agree that the technical image quality is better in the new proposal, but its content is less encyclopedic than the currently used option. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: In light of not having an official portrait, the current image is fine. We should just stick with that until there's an official portrait available instead of having a new discussion every few months. Nemov (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Some other options include [4] or [5], but I think the status quo is fine for now. Curbon7 (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Speculation about 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2023

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

Even if you provide a reliable source, “articles on sports people show their height and weight because those personal attributes are generally considered relevant; articles on politicians do not show their height or weight or sexiness factor.”[6] Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Disney

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Subheaders like”2020” and “2021”

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

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2023

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

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

Fort Lauderdale Floods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HB873

There’s very little media coverage of this legislation, probably because “The state had already provided an exemption for information about people such as executioners and the prescribers of drugs for lethal injections.” [7] Better to cover this at the main article about capital punishment in Florida. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Italian locations

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.[8]. 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)

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.[9]. 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

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)

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)

Disney

I was going to vote for you as president. But this fight with Disney has turned me against you. You sound like a child throwing a tantrum. Let Disney be everyone has a right to there own opinions. 2603:7000:DC3D:1CC9:7495:5C32:ED4F:2A06 (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)