Talk:Ron DeSantis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Either back it up or get it the hell out

“The DeSantis administration suppressed unfavorable facts, and promoted misinformation.”

There is no citation nor substantiation for this claim in the article. This is misleading and needs to be updated. MostConcernedVoter (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

There is indeed a citation in the article, in the appropriate section. Volunteer Marek 23:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Recommend WP:DENY, for that newbie. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

Change "During his tenure in Congress, became a staunch ally of President Donald Trump" to have a subject, probably "he." YourJudge (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Good eye! Thanks! Missvain (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

"Anti-mob legislation" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Anti-mob legislation. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 13#Anti-mob legislation until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

"Anti-mob bill" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Anti-mob bill. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 13#Anti-mob bill until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

"Anti-mob" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Anti-mob. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 13#Anti-mob until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Update his Supreme Court Appointments

I think the page should be updated to mention that two of his initial supreme court appointments were appointed by Trump to the 11th Circuit, that one of their successors was Justice Couriel, and perhaps a brief discussion of his failed attempt to appoint Renatha Francis and subsequent appointment of Jamie Grosshans. Emperor001 (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Large Revisions are needed

The Covid-19 aspects of this biography present a biased narrative that abandon any pretense of neutrality. A few examples: "whistleblower" Rebecka Jones, "has been and continues to be heavily criticized" -- yes, by his political opponents; he's been praised by his political allies, the last two approval polls by Monmouth and Rasmussen show him at 55% and 51% -- ignored in favor of negative poll by a lesser-known entity, omits his early actions to prevent Covid-19 positive patients from being sent back to nursing homes with little isolation, omits the fact that Florida is currently 26th in deaths per capita and 30th in cases per capita, and omits the fact that he has prioritized senior citizens for vaccination unlike many other states.

The biography only cites sources that are liberal and biased against DeSantis. I wonder how many conservative outlets get cited for Democratic politicians' bios? I am not asking for this biography to be biased in favor of DeSantis, but it must be significantly revised to have a semblance of credibility. I will continue to fight this until these revisions occur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairneut (talk • contribs) 07:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

New contributions go to the bottom.

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. If you can find reliable "conservative outlets" (no fake news crap! no Rush Limbaugh, no Breitbart, and so on) that are useful for "Democratic politicians' bios", you are welcome to add them. You are also welcome to add sourced praise for DeSantis. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead should cover his COVID-19 response

It is the defining crisis of his governorship, and is covered at greatest length in the body. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2021

Remove "DeSantis's early tenure as Governor was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. DeSantis's response to the pandemic, in particular the December raid of whistleblower Rebekah Jones,[2][3][4] has been and continues to be heavily criticized; his was the only approval rating of any U.S. governor to decline after COVID-19 became widespread in the U.S." from the introduction of this page. The pages of other prominent governors of states with significantly worse COVID death rates, such as Phil Murphy and Gretchen Whitmer, make no mention of COVID in the introduction. The intro on the page for Andrew Cuomo, who has overseen a significantly more deadly response in which his administration covered up the number of nursing home deaths in the state, simply states that he "gained national attention" for his response.

Further, framing the issue around the response is disingenuous and not informative to readers. The page should instead lay out the actual facts of DeSantis's response - what he did and what the factual results have been. Then it can go into the criticism, though it should be much more explicit about who is criticizing (mostly Democratic or progressive pundits and politicians). 108.4.232.79 (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Approval rating?

The article states that DeSantis is the only US Governor whose approval rating has declined since COVID-19 became widespread. That's simply not true. The source provided is a single poll, and was conducted nine months ago....multiple other Governors have declined since COVID became widespread. Wording needs to be changed, to "as of May 2020", or removed entirely. 2601:18F:4101:4830:BD4D:749E:3DF5:86BF (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone object to changing this? I'd like to hear input from other editors. 2601:18F:4101:4830:545B:388E:543:1514 (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

When I saw that, California governor Gavin Newsom came to mind. Without an update, "... his was the only approval rating of any U.S. governor to decline after COVID-19 became widespread in the U.S." impugns Wikipedia's credibility. This is a false statement as of February 2021, and the sooner this paragraph is updated, the better for Wikipedia and its readers. -- motorfingers : Talk 16:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I support removal. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I also support removal, as the approval rating portion is obviously outdated and untrue. Also, article introductions generally should be concise and not require citations. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 content

The editor "Mr Ernie":

1. removed content about DeSantis violating COVID-19 public health guidance to attend political rallies with maskless attendees where DeSantis high-fived attendees with the intellectually dishonest edit summary "not notable that a R governor helped a R candidate"[1]
2. removed text about Rebekah Jones's arrest, claiming "this has nothing to do with DeSantis",[2] which is belied by the fact that the cited RS do explicitly connect her, her work and her arrest to DeSantis
3. removed text where DeSantis threatened to withhold COVID-19 vaccines from counties if they criticized his distribution[3]

The content is all reliably sourced and all directly related to DeSantis. The editor's changes should be reverted ASAP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Mr Ernie should be pinged, since he and his edits are directly mentioned. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I was clear about why I removed those parts and it had nothing to do with sourcing. We've been through this before - that content is not encyclopedic. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 content (Feb-March 2021)

(1) I am an expert in Florida in CoVID public health, epidemiology, and coronavirus surveillance, with credentials dating back to the SARS 2003 coronavirus episode, the 2014-2015 MERS episode (which had a case in Orlando) and have been associated with the Emerging Pathogens Institute at the University of Florida.

(2) My donations to Wikipedia have been $200 each year for the past decade.

(3) I am fully committed to defending the integrity of Wikipedia, which I use as a resource and recommend as well to my students.

(4) An unnamed editor at Wikipedia has provided false, misleading, and biased statements about how Florida has managed the current coronavirus pandemic. That editor has repeatedly violated wikipedia rules, and damaged the credibility of Wikipedia.

(5) Specifically, that unnamed editor has posted multiple false statements about the course of the pandemic in Florida, the relation of that course to Florida state policy, and posted them on a page having to do with a political figure, not a page relevant to pandemic management policy.

(6) That unnamed editor, in violation of Wikipedia rules, cited repeatedly single "news" pieces from 8 months ago in 2020 that have long since been discredited, claiming that they support the his/her Wikipedia policy violating statements.

(7) In doing so that unnamed editor has damaged he credibility of Wikipedia.

(8) This is the first time that I have ever engaged in dispute resolution for any article on Wikipedia; indeed, it is the second time in my life that I have edited a Wikipedia page.

(9) Accordingly, I am unfamiliar with procedure that must be followed to prevent false and damaging statements from appearing on Wikipedia.

(10) However, because the violations are so egregious, and the threat to public health so severe, I have taken time from patient care to do so.

Let us now review the context:

(11) Throughout 2020, there was a legitimate discussion about the value of various public health measures that might be taken to manage the pandemic.

(12) That discussion was made more complicated by several novel features of CoVID-19, especially its ability to create a wide range of symptoms, ranging from death to none at all, and the ability of individuals with few or no symptoms to pass on the infection to others, especially the elderly, who appeared to be at exceptional risk.

(13) In these properties, CoVID-19 differed dramatically from other coronaviruses, notable SARS 2003 and MERS.

(14) Several states, including California, Michigan, and New York, and many international jurisdictions, notably the United Kingdom, felt that large scale lockdowns were appropriate public health measures.

(15) In contrast, after a brief lockdown in the spring, the State of Florida took the position that lockdowns were not likely to have a have a large impact on public health outcomes. This position was (and remains) legitimate, and influenced the Governor's policy, and yet it is not mentioned here. Instead, Wikipedia claims that the Governor's policy was motivated by political considerations, his wife, and a sportscaster.

(16) The state of Florida also took the position that lockdowns created other problems in public health, including mental health. This position was (and remains) also legitimate, and influenced the Governor's policy, and yet it is not mentioned here. Instead, Wikipedia claims that the Governor's policy was motivated by political considerations, his wife, and a sportscaster.

(17) Further, the State of Florida took the position that the economic impact of lockdowns is not offset by commensurate benefits in public health. This position was (and remains) legitimate, and influenced the Governor's policy, and yet it is not mentioned here. Instead, Wikipedia claims that the Governor's policy was motivated by political considerations, his wife, and a sportscaster.

(18) Similar positions were also taken by other jurisdictions worldwide, notably Sweden and South Korea.

(19) In Q2 of 2020, it was legitimate to question whether the Florida/Sweden/Korea positions were correct. Indeed, the preponderance of "experts" criticized the Florida/Sweden/Korea policies as being "obviously" bad, even though they were all (and remain) legitimate. Indeed, in March 2021, the preponderance of data suggest that the the Florida/Sweden/Korea positions WERE correct.

(20) Unfortunately, management of the pandemic became severely politicized, with largely Democrat politicians, media outlets, and commentaries adopting the "pro-lockdown" position, while Republican run jurisdictions, including Florida under the direction of Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, favoring the Florida/Sweden/Korea model.

(21) Accordingly, throughout Q2 of 2020, pro-Democrat outlets, notably the Washington Post and the Sun Sentinel, attacked Florida policy, criticized the motivations of Governor DeSantis, and obscured the legitimate science behind Florida public health policy decisions.

(22) The unnamed editor has selectively cited these political pieces from the summer of 2020 to deny fact and science on the pages of Wikipedia. Notable is its repeated reference to Washington Post article from July co-authored by Cleve Wootson et al. (current reference 143), and a Washington Post piece from April (Current reference 147).

Let us now review the facts:

(23) With now a full year of experience, it is possible to adjudicate many aspects of this public health dispute.

(24) In all of its points, the Florida/Sweden/Korean assessment of the value of lockdowns and managing epidemic has been supported by the preponderance of evidence.

(25) This public health conclusion is supported by objective metrics, including deaths per capita, hospitalizations per capital, and incidence per capita.

(26) This economic conclusion is also supported by objective metrics, including state domestic product, unemployment, tax revenues, and social metrics.

(27) For example, the per capita data show incidents in Florida to be 8,700 cases per 100,000 population to be better than in California (8,900 cases per 100,000 population). Florida has had 26,000 COVID deaths compared to New York's 43,000. the evidence, data and science suggests that the massive lockdowns in California and New York had no useful public health outcome, that created large amounts of collateral damage in public health, especially mental health and child education, large amounts of collateral economic damage.

(28) Florida statistics are even better considering the fact that it ranks second in the per capita representation of the elderly. For example, compared to New York, Florida has two million more residents, and far more elderly. Elderly are at special risk for severe disease and death.

(29) The Florida policy choices have also been vindicated by economic metrics, notably state gross product, unemployment, and tax revenues, especially when compared to New York and California.

(30) The Florida policy choices have also been vindicated by emerging knowledge of collateral public health issues associated with lockdowns. Especially important has been the realization of mental health impacts of lockdowns, as well as impacts on childhood development and education.

Thus, a year into this pandemic, nearly everyone but political partisans agrees that the Florida/Sweden/Korea model for managing this pandemic has performed better than the California/New York/UK model.

Let us now review the post as provided by the editor who violates Wikipedia rules:

However, you would not know this by reading the Wikipedia page on Ron DeSantis, which continues to present a partisan perspective that has long been debunked. We know go paragraph by paragraph through the existing Wikipedia page.

Paragraph 1. The statement that Florida's handling of the cuvée pandemic has been "harshly criticized" is true. However, the Wikipedia page MUST have the following additional phrase: "by political opponents of Governor DeSantis". The implication that political considerations, including his relationship with Donald Trump, guided his policy decisions MUST BE REMOVED. As noted above, Gov. DeSantis took one side in a difficult problem in public health, that side was fully supported by science then available to him, and the policy decisions that implemented have, in retrospect, proving to be entirely justified. If the Sun Sentinel is to be quoted at all, the statement that the "administration suppressed unfavorable facts ..." MUST BE FOLLOWED by the statement "These allegations were all disputed by the administration".

Paragraph 2 repeats the same political commentary from the same source. It is simply false to state that "politics dictated the response to CoVID-19 in Florida, rather than science". It is unacceptable in Wikipedia to site a second time the same political hit piece. It is an unacceptable on Wikipedia to report that in July 2020 Florida had become a "global epicenter of the coronavirus". This is simply false, and has no place in any Wikipedia article. The Washington Post report that DeSantis relied primarily on his wife for coronavirus management is libelous as well as false. The entire paragraph must be removed. If it remains, then Wikipedia rules require that it be clearly marked as disputed, with the facts presented.

Paragraph 3 is, of course, biased in its language, but it also returns to the exact same political hit pieces to obtain "support" for its allegations, adding a piece from Vox, also a political opponent of all Republicans, as far as I can tell. While it is true that "experts" cherry picked by this Wikipedia editor disagreed with the Florida/Sweden/Korea program to manage the pandemic, and indeed argue that delays in lockdown would increase Florida's coronavirus numbers and have it become a hotspot, this Wikipedia paragraph MUST BE FOLLOWED by the statement: "As as the data later have established, these experts were incorrect, and the Florida pandemic management program did not greatly increase for the coronavirus numbers and did not make it a hotspot."

Paragraph 4 Repeat the citation of the same political hit piece relied on previously, just with a new reference number. It misquotes Gov. DeSantis, as well. IT MUST BE REMOVED.

Paragraph 5 sites statistics from Florida coronavirus cases dating from March 2020, a full year ago. I have attempted to edit this Wikipedia page to provide March 2021 statistics. The editor violating Wikipedia rules has repeatedly removed my edits, seeking to use Wikipedia to obscure the success of the Florida policy.

Further, the editor returns to the Washington Post piece to claim that "Florida recorded the largest case surge in six weeks" in June. As is noted two paragraphs below, this was simply because of an increase in testing, including in prisons, agriculture, and asymptomatic individuals. Further, it is misleading because it does not note that the "surge" was smaller than many states that have strict lockdowns.

Further, the editor apparently understands nothing about public health policy. The fact that the increase was in younger cohorts means, among other things, that the increase in incidence does not correspond to an increase in hospitalizations, severe disease, or death. The governor made the calculation that the economic and collateral public health damage from lockdowns could be avoided justifiably if the only increase in infections were from people who had minor or no symptoms. Whether or not one is Democrat or Republican, one understands that this is a science-based decision coupled with broader social considerations.

If these paragraphs are to remain, they must include the observation that the Governor had made the science-based decision that further lockdown was not going to lead to significant improvement in public health outcomes, and certainly not improvement commensurate to the corollary public health damage and economic loss. Then, the paragraph must note that THE GOVERNOR HAD BEEN CORRECT AND THAT THE "EXPERTS" CHERRY PICKED BY THE UNETHICAL WIKIPEDIA EDITOR HAD BEEN INCORRECT.

Paragraph 6 repeats the falsehood that "by July, Florida became a global epicenter of the virus". It had not. Period.

Wikipedia is NOT to be used by political partisans such as the unnamed editor to carry out political vendettas by disseminating falsehoods.

Paragraph 7. The bias obvious in the opening (DeSantis "came under increased scrutiny") HAS NO PLACE IN A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. See comments above.

Paragraph 8 is semi-factual. However, the bias in phrases "despite persistent cases", the cherrypicking of allegations, and the absences of any remarks that indicate that the Florida/Sweden/Korea model was winning the public policy debate over lockdowns is unacceptable in a Wikipedia article.

Paragraph 9, the allegations concerning which advice from which experts the governor chose to follow have no place in a Wikipedia article. The bias that Scott Atlas has been "widely condemned by other scientists for his views" is transparent. It gives the impression that these "other scientists" should be believed; data now show that they were wrong. Further, the imputation that DeSantis chose experts so that he could have "press conferences together" is transparent bias that has no place in the Wikipedia article.

The reply from Snod is unacceptable. A balanced wikipedia page might be "Atlas disagreed with other experts; other experts disagreed with Atlas". However, Wikipedia is being abused when it tells only one side of a legitimate public health dispute.

Paragraph 10 Likewise has no place in the Wikipedia article. It comes, again, from a public source notably hostile to Republican governance in the state of Florida. It libels a nonpublic figure. It has no place in a Wikipedia article.

Let us now review the needed edits:

A Wikipedia article on the Florida management of the pandemic, posted on a page under the governor's heading, must at the very least provide an objective assessment of the outcomes of DeSantis' management of the pandemic. It must not be regurgitation of old statistics and eight-month-old political hit pieces from politically opposing media outlets.

That article must acknowledge that at the start of the pandemic, there were legitimate discussions on how the pandemic should be handled. It must acknowledge that DeSantis, like all governors, was making decisions with incomplete knowledge over untrodden ground. It must acknowledge it Gov. DeSantis was advised by a wide range of experts with many different points of view. The article should not be dismissive of experts like Scott Atlas, Sweden, or others advising Gov. DeSantis. It must acknowledge the governor balanced considerations of coronavirus spread with factors concerning other diseases, factors concerning economics, and factors concerning education, among others. If one wants to be charitable to Gov. DeSantis, one might note that this is what the governor is supposed to do.

In any case, that article must acknowledge that by objective metrics, not only for coronavirus infection but also for collateral public health issues and economic issues, those experts and the Florida model have proven to be the most successful so far in the United States, and the corresponding Swedish model has proven to be most successful so far in Europe.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.14.30 (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC) 

Wikipedia is not for WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You may hold the personal opinion that DeSantis, Sweden and Scott Atlas did great re: COVID-19, but it's irrelevant as to what can and should be included. Content adheres to WP:RS. We don't remove or alter content because we personally disagree with WP:RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Huge Unsupported Addition, No References

"DeSantis adopted a lax and delayed approach, and sidelined public health experts. The DeSantis administration suppressed unfavorable facts, and promoted misinformation." There is no reference for this huge slam. This reads like an opinion or conclusion, and with no substantiation it seems to be a big NPOV violation. Substantiation by reference to an opinion page is not what we need here. Hasn't an identical statement been removed before? See the first entry on this Talk page as of February 2021 above. -- motorfingers : Talk 18:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a summary of this section, which is the largest in the article.[4] The content adheres strictly to the cited reliable sources. There is no "opinion". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The reference cited for the paragraph summarized is an opinion page in the Washington Post, not a reliable NPOV source. -- motorfingers : Talk 19:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

That is false. It's not an opinion source. Furthermore, the content in question is not exclusively sourced to the Washington Post. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Partially unrelated, but the "COVID-19 pandemic" section includes the same information twice (refs 129 and 145), using the same reference[5] and nearly-identical wording. This should be condensed. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia procedures when attempting to remove political bias and factual errors, including numerical errors. It appears that someone here is misrepresenting fact to damage Wikipedia as a credible information source, preferring into be a political "hit piece" on Governor DeSantis.

I have attempted to put facts onto the page by edit. Those have been removed. I have now written a long piece below describing the facts.

Nevertheless, the Wikipedia page remains anti-factual, anti-science, and transparently biased. What does one do next? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.14.30 (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Covid-19

Much of the sources used in the Covid-19 section is going against what is said in this article. For example, while the Wikipedia page says that Florida was falsely accused of being the "world epicenter", the article cited as proof is telling the contrary. Olivierbt96 (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Edits on this topic are undone with vague suggestions of unsourced when sources are there.Kmccook (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Trying to get editor Snooganssnoogans to allow peer reviewed science to appear on Wikipedia, even though it does not fit his/her political agenda

Snooganssnoogans has again deleted peer reviewed science providing accurate facts about the COVID--19 management in Florida. I have posted this on his/her talk page, and called his/her misbehavior to the attention of the Wikipedia administration:

"As a public health expert, as I talk to the Wikipedia administration and various other editors, we really want to know what motivates you?

Again and again, you have deleted peer reviewed science, with detailed citations to the literature, that show that in terms of outcome, Florida made more or less the correct decisions concerning pandemic management. Further, we have shown that the "news" pieces that you claim support your anti-science are in fact political hit pieces. In any case, they are old and proven wrong. No, Florida did not become "global epicenter of the coronavirus", no matter what the Sun Sentinel said in June.

Do you not understand peer reviewed science? Do you not understand that misrepresenting the pandemic in Florida causes disease and death? Or do you simply think that disease and death are acceptable outcomes, as long as you enforce your political ideology.

We try to appear to the better angels of your nature by imploring you to allow readers of Wikipedia to know the truth of the Florida pandemic. "

Here is the science that wikipedia readers might actually like to know about, but that Snooganssnoogans is censoring.

As the pandemic unfolded in 2020, public health scientists worldwide began a program of peer-reviewed research to assess the value of different public health measures taken to manage the pandemic. [3] The CoVID-19 virus behaved in many ways differently from previously seen coronaviruses, including the coronaviruses that caused SARS 2003 and MERS. [4] Especially important for its transmission was the ability of COVID-19 to create a wide range of symptoms, ranging from death to none at all. Further, infected individuals with few or no symptoms were able to pass on the infection to others, especially the elderly, who proved to have risk of severe symptoms, hospitalization, and death. [5] Several states, including California, Michigan, and New York, and many international jurisdictions, notably the United Kingdom, undertook large scale lockdowns. [6] Other jurisdictions did not. For example, in Sweden, instead of widespread lockdowns, steps were taken to protect the elderly, with much of the rest of the economy remaining open. [7] What emerged was effectively a world-wide experiment in studies of how best to improve public health outcomes. [8] Further, peer reviewed literature established that lockdowns had substantial economic cost. [9] [10] Further, peer reviewed literature established that lockdowns created other medical problems, especially in mental health. [11] This required each jurisdiction to guess how to proceed, with those guesses becoming increasingly informed as the world-wide efforts could be comparatively evaluated. In Florida, after a brief "stay at home order" in early spring, Governor DeSantis chose a pandemic response similar to that of Sweden. Elderly living facilities were protected by restricting visitors, and ensuring that no individual hospitalized with COVID was released back to such a facility. Then, DeSantis chose to minimize lockdowns, stating that his goal was to balance economic damage, direct medical damage, and collateral medical damage. As of March 2021, Florida strategy can be evaluated, especially in comparison with medical and economic outcomes in states that chose alternative pandemic management strategies. First, Florida never became a "global epicenter of the coronavirus", as some had predicted. As of March 2021, the total number of cases per 100,000 in Florida was 8734, compared to California (8805) and New York (8337). [12] Further, the number of deaths per 100,000 in Florida was 144, compared to California (132), New York (163), and the US as a whole (154). As Florida ranks second (after Maine) in its proportion of elderly, and as elderly proved to be the most susceptible to severe disease and death, this performance is noteworthy. These data informed public debate, not only for the COVID-19 pandemic but for future pandemics. In particular, they suggested that lockdowns did not have material impact on public health outcomes. Florida's strategy can also now be evaluated based on economic, educational, and other non-medical facts. For example, as of December 2020, Florida's unemployment rate was 6.1%, compared to the national 6.7% rate. Florida presently ranks second in Advanced Placement test scores. [13]. Scientific analysis was also remarkable in the degree to which pandemic response policies were politicized. Most major news outlets in Florida did not endorse DeSantis in his election campaign, and many wrote "news" pieces criticizing his policy that made transparently false allegations. [14]. Noting that "politics is wrecking America's pandemic response", [15] thee Brookings Institute remarked on "partisan gaps" where politically motivated "news" pieces assumed that extreme lockdowns were the only "scientifically correct" response to the pandemic, "even though they reflected … distrust of the President, rather than proposals grounded in evidence". Brookings Institute noted that "[w]hatever the public health merits, we find that lockdown policies and business closures do real damage to the economy that goes beyond the actual effects predicted by infections or deaths at the county level." Brookings reported that as of September, unemployment in Republican states was 6.7%, while unemployment in Democrat states was 11.3%. Consistent with his policy disfavoring lockdowns, DeSantis was the target of much, sometimes harsh, criticism from sources that opposed him politically on other matters, including the Sun Sentinel and the Washington Post. In many of these, the science supporting the DeSantis policies were not mentioned, with the attacks claiming that DeSantis was not relying on science and data in guiding Florida's pandemic response, but rather claiming that DeStantis was relying on sportscasters, family members, and discredited experts for pandemic management advice. For example, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.189.139 (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Trying to get Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck and Snooganssnoogans to allow peer reviewed science to appear on Wikipedia, even though it does not fit her political agenda

Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck and Snooganssnoogans now repeatedly deleted peer-reviewed science, with detailed citations to the literature, that show that in its outcome, Florida (in retrospect) made more or less the correct decisions concerning pandemic management. This fact, of course, is important to inform public health actions that will be taken to manage future pandemics. Further, Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck and Snooganssnoogans are repeatedly restoring old "news" pieces that were, in fact political "hit pieces". Further, they have been proven wrong. Efforts to engage Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck have failed. She routinely deletes from her talk page our collegial comments.

As the Brookings institute noted, "politics is wrecking America's pandemic response",

By replacing peer reviewed science by political "hit pieces", Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck and Snooganssnoogans are spreads misinformation about the pandemic. In doing so, they damage public health response, increasing the incidence of the disease, the number of severe cases, and the number of deaths. Again, we have reached out to these "editors", and they have not responded. It appears as if they are willing to accept more illness, hospitalizations, and death, just so long as their politically biases are vindicated.

here again are the facts:

As the pandemic unfolded in 2020, public health scientists worldwide began a program of peer-reviewed research to assess the value of different public health measures taken to manage the spread of the virus. This was challenging because CoVID-19 virus behaved in many ways differently from previously seen coronaviruses, including the coronaviruses that caused SARS 2003 and MERS. Especially important for its facile transmission was the ability of COVID-19 to create a wide range of symptoms, ranging from death to none at al, infected individuals with few or no symptoms were able to pass on the infection to others, especially the elderly, who proved to have an especially high risk of severe symptoms, hospitalization, and death.

Several states, including California, Michigan, and New York, and many international jurisdictions, notably the United Kingdom, undertook large scale lockdowns. Other jurisdictions did not. For example, in Sweden, instead of widespread lockdowns, steps were taken to protect the elderly, while much of the rest of the economy remained open. What emerged was effectively a world-wide experiment in studies of what policies best improved public health outcomes.

Further, peer reviewed literature established that lockdowns had substantial economic cost. Peer reviewed literature also established that lockdowns create other medical problems, especially in mental health. This required that as the pandemic progressed, each jurisdiction made guesses about how to proceed, with those guesses becoming increasingly informed as the world-wide efforts were comparatively evaluated.

In Florida, after a brief "stay at home order" in early spring, Governor DeSantis chose a pandemic response similar to that of Sweden. Elderly living facilities were protected by restricting visitors, and ensuring that no individual hospitalized with COVID was released back to such a facility. More broadly, DeSantis chose to minimize lockdowns, stating that his goal was to balance economic damage, direct medical damage, and collateral medical damage.

As of March 2021, Florida strategy can be evaluated, especially in comparison with medical and economic outcomes in states that chose alternative pandemic management strategies. First, Florida never became a "global epicenter of the coronavirus", as the Washington Post had predicted in July 2020. On the contrary, as of March 2021, the total number of cases per 100,000 in Florida (8734/100,000) was quite similar to other large states where lockdowns had been aggressively pursued, including California (8805/100,000) and New York (8337/100,000). Further, the number of deaths per 100,000 in Florida was 144, compared to California (132), New York (163), and the US as a whole (154). As Florida ranks second (after Maine) in its proportion of elderly, and as elderly individuals proved to be the most susceptible to severe disease and death, this performance is noteworthy.

These data informed public debate, not only for the COVID-19 pandemic but for future pandemics. In particular, they suggested that lockdowns did not have large impact on public health outcomes.

Florida's strategy can also now be evaluated based on economic, educational, and other non-medical metrics. For example, Brookings reported that as of September, unemployment in Republican states was 6.7%, while unemployment in Democrat states was 11.3%. As of December 2020, Florida's unemployment rate was 6.1%, compared to the national 6.7% rate.

Scientific analyses also remarked on the degree to which pandemic response policies were politicized. This also did not occur with previous pandemics and pandemic threats. Most major news outlets did not endorse DeSantis in his election campaign, and several wrote "news" pieces criticizing his policy that made transparently false allegations. . Noting that "politics is wrecking America's pandemic response", the Brookings Institute remarked on "partisan gaps", including politically motivated pieces that assumed that extreme lockdowns were the only "scientifically correct" response to the pandemic, "even though they reflected … distrust of the President, rather than proposals grounded in evidence". Brookings Institute also noted that "[w]hatever the public health merits, we find that lockdown policies and business closures do real damage to the economy that goes beyond the actual effects predicted by infections or deaths at the county level." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.14.30 (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Please restore the "archive" buttons

There is no simple way to find archived discussions on this talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Frodar (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Was his rank really Lieutenant Commander?

I think it should be either referenced or corrected. The article only mentions his promotion to Navy Lieutenant in 2006 and then his transfer to reserves at the same rank, his personal website has a picture of him wearing the Navy Lieutenant rank as well, but the infobox and wikidata list him with a higher rank - as LtCdr. Infobox contains no reference for this higher rank. The wikidata record is referenced only by italian wikipedia, which in turn has no reference for this claim at all either. KPX8 (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal of RS content (racism, big tech)

The editor Mr Ernie removed the following content in bold[6]:

• In April 2021, DeSantis called the idea of systemic racism in the U.S. "a bunch of horse manure."
• When Trump refused to concede after losing the 2020 presidential election and used social media to spread false claims of fraud, several social media networks removed him from their platforms. In response, DeSantis and other Florida Republicans pushed legislation in the Florida legislature to prohibit technology companies from de-platforming political candidates. An exception was made for Disney, which runs a theme park in Florida.

References

The editor claimed that it was "irrelevant editorializing" to clarify why Trump had been deplatformed (because he used social media to lie about election fraud and rile up his fans to storm the Capitol), expressed their incorrect personal view that Disney was not a tech company, and claimed that DeSantis's views on systemic racism are "UNDUE". The content in question is reliably sourced and DUE. Where a governor of a large state stands on racism seems like basic information to cover, as is context under which Republicans are going after technology companies. Snooganssnoogans (talk)

• The first point is just UNDUE on it's own, but even if it wasn't then that isn't actually what DeSantis said. The source also states that Biden and Harris don't think America is a racist country. Regarding the second point, this article is an encyclopedic entry about Ron DeSantis. You can put the editorializing about Donald Trump and Disney in the more relevant articles. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Covid-19

Hello! To provide a more complete understanding of the result of DeSantis' Covid-19 policies, I suggest including objective metrics. In particular it would be helpful to the reader to cite:

1. Deaths per capita in FL. By the CDC website, it is currently 143 per 100k, which is less than the US average of 154.

2. The unemployment rate of FL. According to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, the unemployment rate was 6.1%, which, again, is less than the US average of 6.7%.

Without such metrics, it is unfortunate that the reader currently comes away with the impression that Florida has done much worse than most states because of a disastrous response by DeSantis.

And, if I could offer one further suggestion, it seems there's no mention of how DeSantis handled school reopening. That would appear to be a major omission since it has occupied much space in the news and affects millions of children.

Assuming the editors are in agreement about these obvious omissions, I will gladly edit the article to include them. Thank you for your help in making Wikipedia more objective. 2600:1700:281:2700:6135:506A:F7EF:4BDE (talk) 06:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

First, who am I talking to here. A wikipedia staff member, or a member of the public? Second, the piece still has not been edited according to the (27) points that I have raised. Do I edit it myself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.14.30 (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm just a member of the public like you with my own points :-) I think you can edit the article -- I did -- though you can count on someone making further changes after you. 2600:1700:281:2700:806E:8B77:85DA:4868 (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, the COVID-19 coverage uses many negative adjectives to portray the situation. Have added some objectivity. I notice this page is closely watched and reverts of much that is not negative.Kmccook (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck and Snooganssnoogans are closely watching this page, and are deleting any facts that do not conform to their political agenda, including those that are tightly referenced to peer reviewed scientific studies; the references that Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck and Snooganssnoogans cite are political hit pieces that they mischaracterize as "news" pieces. It was obvious from the start that no, Florida did not rely on the Governor's wife, sportscasters, and discredited "experts" in guiding its pandemic response, and for Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck and Snooganssnoogans to put this on Wikipedia as "referenced fact" is absurd.

Interestingly, I make substantial donations to Wikipedia each year, and got back a very nice letter from a real person when I called to their attention the (mis)behavior of Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck and Snooganssnoogans. They are guiding me as we attempt to undo the damage that Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck and Snooganssnoogans have done.

My concern, as a medical health professional, is that their misinformation will lead to a failure in the general public to understand the lessons of the COVID pandemic. Last March, none of us knew quite what to do by public policy. Now we do. For this virus, the curves are more or less the same regardless of whether you locked down or not, had a mask mandate or not, and so on. The only important thing is whether you protected elder care facilities. Florida's "outstanding" death rates compared to other jurisdictions came from Florida's learning this lesson early from the Italian experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.189.139 (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans has again deleted peer reviewed science providing accurate facts about the COVID--19 management in Florida. I have posted this on his/her talk page, and called his/her misbehavior to the attention of the Wikipedia administration:

"As a public health expert, as I talk to the Wikipedia administration and various other editors, we really want to know what motivates you?

Again and again, you have deleted peer reviewed science, with detailed citations to the literature, that show that in terms of outcome, Florida made more or less the correct decisions concerning pandemic management. Further, we have shown that the "news" pieces that you claim support your anti-science are in fact political hit pieces. In any case, they are old and proven wrong. No, Florida did not become "global epicenter of the coronavirus", no matter what the Sun Sentinel said in June.

Do you not understand peer reviewed science? Do you not understand that misrepresenting the pandemic in Florida causes disease and death? Or do you simply think that disease and death are acceptable outcomes, as long as you enforce your political ideology.

We try to appear to the better angels of your nature by imploring you to allow readers of Wikipedia to know the truth of the Florida pandemic. "

Here is the science that wikipedia readers might actually like to know about, but that Snooganssnoogans is censoring.

As the pandemic unfolded in 2020, public health scientists worldwide began a program of peer-reviewed research to assess the value of different public health measures taken to manage the pandemic. The CoVID-19 virus behaved in many ways differently from previously seen coronaviruses, including the coronaviruses that caused SARS 2003 and MERS. Especially important for its transmission was the ability of COVID-19 to create a wide range of symptoms, ranging from death to none at all. Further, infected individuals with few or no symptoms were able to pass on the infection to others, especially the elderly, who proved to have risk of severe symptoms, hospitalization, and death. Several states, including California, Michigan, and New York, and many international jurisdictions, notably the United Kingdom, undertook large scale lockdowns. Other jurisdictions did not. For example, in Sweden, instead of widespread lockdowns, steps were taken to protect the elderly, with much of the rest of the economy remaining open. What emerged was effectively a world-wide experiment in studies of how best to improve public health outcomes. Further, peer reviewed literature established that lockdowns had substantial economic cost. Further, peer reviewed literature established that lockdowns created other medical problems, especially in mental health. This required each jurisdiction to guess how to proceed, with those guesses becoming increasingly informed as the world-wide efforts could be comparatively evaluated. In Florida, after a brief "stay at home order" in early spring, Governor DeSantis chose a pandemic response similar to that of Sweden. Elderly living facilities were protected by restricting visitors, and ensuring that no individual hospitalized with COVID was released back to such a facility. Then, DeSantis chose to minimize lockdowns, stating that his goal was to balance economic damage, direct medical damage, and collateral medical damage. As of March 2021, Florida strategy can be evaluated, especially in comparison with medical and economic outcomes in states that chose alternative pandemic management strategies. First, Florida never became a "global epicenter of the coronavirus", as some had predicted. As of March 2021, the total number of cases per 100,000 in Florida was 8734, compared to California (8805) and New York (8337). Further, the number of deaths per 100,000 in Florida was 144, compared to California (132), New York (163), and the US as a whole (154). As Florida ranks second (after Maine) in its proportion of elderly, and as elderly proved to be the most susceptible to severe disease and death, this performance is noteworthy. These data informed public debate, not only for the COVID-19 pandemic but for future pandemics. In particular, they suggested that lockdowns did not have material impact on public health outcomes. Florida's strategy can also now be evaluated based on economic, educational, and other non-medical facts. For example, as of December 2020, Florida's unemployment rate was 6.1%, compared to the national 6.7% rate. Florida presently ranks second in Advanced Placement test scores. . Scientific analysis was also remarkable in the degree to which pandemic response policies were politicized. Most major news outlets in Florida did not endorse DeSantis in his election campaign, and many wrote "news" pieces criticizing his policy that made transparently false allegations. . Noting that "politics is wrecking America's pandemic response", thee Brookings Institute remarked on "partisan gaps" where politically motivated "news" pieces assumed that extreme lockdowns were the only "scientifically correct" response to the pandemic, "even though they reflected … distrust of the President, rather than proposals grounded in evidence". Brookings Institute noted that "[w]hatever the public health merits, we find that lockdown policies and business closures do real damage to the economy that goes beyond the actual effects predicted by infections or deaths at the county level." Brookings reported that as of September, unemployment in Republican states was 6.7%, while unemployment in Democrat states was 11.3%. Consistent with his policy disfavoring lockdowns, DeSantis was the target of much, sometimes harsh, criticism from sources that opposed him politically on other matters, including the Sun Sentinel and the Washington Post. In many of these, the science supporting the DeSantis policies were not mentioned, with the attacks claiming that DeSantis was not relying on science and data in guiding Florida's pandemic response, but rather claiming that DeStantis was relying on sportscasters, family members, and discredited experts for pandemic management advice. For example, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.189.139 (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This page reads like a political hit piece more than an unbiased presentation of information. Shame on the editors who have high jacked pages like this to push an agenda rather than to inform — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.77.36 (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

"He is of Italian descent"

Karen Rogers doesn't sound very Italian. looks like OR--209.128.15.129 (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

[7] His ancestry is verified by this reliable source. Curbon7 (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

COVID section

This section needs to be edited to give a broad overview of the COVID response rather than a random play-by-play. Basically, despite a lot of partisan and media hand-wringing, Florida is no worse off than other states that took different approaches to the virus. Here are some more recent sources: Axios "the national press is beginning to ask the question that even Democrats have been quietly pondering in the Sunshine State: Was Gov. Ron DeSantis' pandemic response right for Florida?" New York Times CNN "Despite far fewer rules and restrictions, Florida lands nearly in the middle of all states on a variety of coronavirus metrics." Marquardtika (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. That section should focus on giving a broader overview of DeSantis's actions in response to the coronavirus, rather than reading like a collection of separate news stories. The latter does a disservice to readers wanting to know what DeSantis did as governor. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC: COVID-19 content

The following discussion 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.

---

Should the COVID-19 section of the body include content on (1) DeSantis organizing and attending rallies with maskless attendees and interacting with the attendees (e.g. high-fiving them), (2) the controversy over Rebekah Jones (who has been in a dispute with the DeSantis administration over COVID-19 data), and (3) DeSantis threatening to withhold vaccines from counties that criticize the distribution? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources for 1, 2, 3.

References

Survey

• Yes. The content is amply and reliably sourced, and covers DeSantis's response to the public health crisis that has rocked the world and been the focus of his administration (2019–). Thus, content on the topic would meet both DUE and NPOV. The content is not only thoroughly sourced in news reporting (which includes international coverage: BBC News, The Guardian), but has also promoted editorials from the major newspapers in Florida. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• No: At least for (1) and (3), per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. This article is a biography, not a news blog of his governorship. This is also a problem with other current-politician articles, where they're littered with news-of-the-day content that doesn't have long-term significance. I wouldn't be opposed to adding a sourced sentence saying that DeSantis had a habit of regularly violating coronavirus guidelines (if that's actually the case), or a sentence that his vaccine rollout was criticized for certain reasons, but it's UNDUE to get into the weeds with these specific daily-news incidents. Even without any of the info in question, the COVID-19 content still comprises a large portion of the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• No. (1) is UNDUE trivia that is hard to take seriously, the text removed earlier for (2) makes no mention of DeSantis, and (3) is content I would expect to see on a somewhat partisan news blog, not an encyclopedia. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• No. per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. While I think many of us can agree that what DeSantis did was reckless, I do not think it is wise to add such an insignificant (but major) shortcoming to this article. All notable politicians have a fair amount of reliably sourced negative information, but I think including them all is incredibly WP:UNDUE. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I partially retract what I said. (2) may be worthy of inclusion in the article, but not the rest. That seems like a notable controversy. However, it may be WP:TOOSOON to tell. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yes on (2). There may be reasons to exclude this, but those reasons certainly do not include the idea that this "has nothing to do with DeSantis." The episode with Jones is an important and potentially explosive example of the Governor's policy in matters related to the pandemic. It is plain that the Governor was involved in the case, given his repeated, on the record comments on the matter, as well as comments from his press office, both on the dismissal, and on the law enforcement actions. Johnadams11 (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. Important aspect of tenure; discussed in detail by various reliable sources. As for (1): if the failure to take COVID-19 precautions were a single incident, I would probably argue that it would be too "newsy" to include. Here, however, there are multiple sources about separate incidents involving DeSantis over a series of months, including one that spawned a county investigation. On (2) the Rebekah Jones saga has received local, national, and international converge over a series of at least three months, so that certainly belongs here. As for (3), the threat to withhold vaccines from counties on a political basis is of course highly significant and very well sourced (with in-depth coverage, see, e.g., this lengthy piece). Reasonable minds can differ on how much text should be devoted to these, or how exactly this content should be presented, but to omit this material at all would be entirely wrong. Some of the comments above do not make much sense to me. For example, I'm not seeing how this is "hard to take seriously" (whatever that means); this was treated very seriously indeed by the sources, which are what matters. Similarly, I don't understand the proposed content to be "criticism"; rather, I understand the proposal to be about describing a significant aspect of his career/tenure as governor—his handling of a pandemic in which 30,000 people in Florida died. And the contention that this content is akin to a "blog post" or "news of the day" doesn't hold much water, given the enduring, in-depth coverage over weeks and months. Neutrality^talk 23:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality, I have edited my comment. Thanks. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• (1) Maybe, (2) Yes, (3) Maybe. I agree with 1990'sguy that (1) is WP:UNDUE, however, if a sufficient number of separate instances of disregarding CDC guidelines can be found (two is not enough), then perhaps a single sentence could be justified as WP:DUE. I agree with Johnadams11 and Neutrality on (2). I find that (3) is WP:TOOSOON. Maybe if this develops into something more of a scandal (e.g., a kickback), then perhaps it could become WP:DUE. Brvhelios (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• No. WP:NOTNEWS. The information in this article, as with any article, should meet the WP:10YEARTEST. I am not convinced this contested content does. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• 'Yes' on all three. Supported by high quality sources and I do believe a critical biography ten years from now would mention them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes on all three. This is an important part of his tenure. I disagree with the other editors who say that this is not worthy of inclusion - per Morbidthoughts this will likely be studied in the future as an important part f human history, so these points should not fail the WP:10YEARTEST and WP:NOTNEWS. These are not just random news headlines and are important to the article at hand. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 01:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• No on one and three. Two has recieved significant media coverage, and should be included in such a way that respects WP:NPOV. Screechybird1 (talk) 03:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Soft Yes on 1, Hard Yes on 2 and 3 - All three points are relevant to the section in question (DeSantis's relation to the pandemic) and should be included. 2 and 3 in particular since they are directly linked to his performance as governor of his State. 1 is still relevant, but since it relates to his political rallies rather than his office, I understand while some would not agree with it being here. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Soft No on 1, Hard No on 2 and 3 - Maybe a sentence on his activity during the pandemic in terms of whether he followed local mask regulations or the like. Hard No on Jones, the story of which only includes Desantis tangentially with very big accusations but no evidence of direct involvement. DoesPolitics (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes on all of them. Olivierbt96 (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes on all of them, for reasons above. Eccekevin (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Olivierbt96 (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• No. What he did was reckless per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUESea Ane (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• 1)Maybe. We can always say something like "at times during the COVID pandemic, DeSantis didn't seem to be observing widely followed social distancing and masking precautions". 2) No. Rebekah Jones is clearly a Florida woman. Mentioning her on the governor's page is undue. 3) No. Not really clear to me from what the sources say that DeSantis's comment was a "credible threat" more than it was just an off-hand remark. NickCT (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes (Summoned by bot) per in depth and well reasoned arguments of Neutrality above. In depth, widespread coverage of defining issues of his performance. Pincrete (talk) 07:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes – all three have significant coverage in reliable sources, which is the criteria for inclusion; the appropriate level of detail is a separate issue, per Neutrality. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 21:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, much of this seems to have WP:SUSTAINED national coverage (eg. [8][9].) These are significant events in the timeline of one of the most significant challenges he faced as governor, so it's hard to see how a sentence or two for each, deep in the body in the section devoted to that aspect, could reasonably be considered undue. For comparison (remember, due weight is relative to what's already in the article) we mention things like his being a member of a Little League team in his youth; we devote an entire paragraph to a bill he introduced that received comparatively little coverage and did not become law; we mention a random pledge he signed; we mention his decision not to collect his pension; and we mention his batting average (!). It is hard to see how a few sentences devoted to highly-covered aspects of a major part of his time as governor is WP:UNDUE in an article with its current focus. --Aquillion (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Not including would be a case of fairly blatant whitewashing - the undue argument is nonsense. Significant events that received significant coverage - as Aquillion noted, we include a lot of information that is far less consequential. Bacondrum 06:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Yes for 2 and 3, No for 1. While 1 has low importance and it depends on how the fact is written in the article. Point 2 and 3 defitely should be included partially agreeing PraiseVivec and DoesPolitics. Chirota (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Yes on all of them. I do believe that any action that he took concerning Covid_19 pandemic will and should be mentioned since it will always reflect on his tenure as a governor. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 07:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. These are significant controversies of public interest widely reported on national media that would be important to somebody evaluating DeSantis's administration in the future; hence it passes the WP:10YEARTEST with flying colours, especially if the coverage of the three topics combined is limited to one or two paragraphs. --DaysonZhang (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
• No for 1, as per all the above reasons especially WP:NOTNEWS. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
• Yes for 2, we should not WP:CENSOR controversial material but write it a WP:NEUTRAL manner. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, Yes, and Yes All are widely covered and should not be suppressed. Reywas92^Talk 06:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Yes on (2). The second proposal is newsworthy, is notable and well documented. The other two proposals seems to suggest a bias and does not adhere to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. Jurisdicta (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong No on 2 Jones has been making eye-popping claims of wrongdoing by DeSantis for quite a long time now, but no evidence has emerged to back up her claims and the media have gone on to other things - probably they've noticed Rebekah_Jones#Legal_issues. 72.68.118.186 (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Yes on all three options but with due weight. 200 words (a single paragraph) should cover it. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Yes on 1 and 2, NO WAY on 3The first two are good. The third's references have a headline that is not consistent with the article. Ron Desantis does not threaten counties to withhold vaccines. "If Manatee County doesn't like us doing this, then we are totally fine with putting this in counties that want it," and "We're going to look to do more and more with the additional doses but anyone in Manatee ... if they don't want us doing it, then just tell us, and we'll make sure that that that we send those doses to folks who want it," are far from threatening statements dispite what multiple news outlets claim. Summarizing what Desantis says is similar to if they dont want it, then they dont have to get it.Yousef Raz (talk) 06:30, 19 May 2021 (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.

So what should the Rebekah Jones topic wording be, given that her claim has basically fallen apart and most of what she said wasn't true? The only recent coverage is conservative pieces, as it seems now most outlets don't want to touch the developments - Fox News and NRO. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Transphobic governor

DeSantis signed a bill to exclude t girls from sports. CBSN's Elaine Quijano reports. "Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signs transgender athlete bill into law" --2601:C4:C300:1BD0:D801:EF9:773B:63B4 (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2021

Please do not claim that Florida was epicenter of COVID-19 pandemic that is simply not true and never was 172.58.175.36 (talk) 11:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

That claim is supported by the Washington Post. Thank you for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 13:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

2024 prospects

DeSantis recently topped a straw poll for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination. I do not have the authority to add this information, and I'm not sure where it would best fit, but it warrants a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.190.163 (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/559382-desantis-tops-trump-in-2024-presidential-straw-poll

Environment

I do not want to get into a political battle here and do not identify with either major political party. There needs to be much more added on Governor DeSantis positive Environmental initiatives for the State of Florida. He and his cabinet are doing so much to protect our environment, actually more than I have seen of any state in my lifetime.

Re:

Environment

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, a suite of 68 projects designed to restore the "River of Grass." $473 Mil

EAA Reservoir $64 Mil

Florida Climate Change $1 Bil! https://www.flgov.com/2021/05/12/governor-ron-desantis-signs-bill-to-further-strengthen-floridas-resiliency-efforts/

Piney Point Closure: 13-Apr-2021 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/04/13/piney-point-closing-florida-gov-ron-desantis-announces-closure-plan/7205116002/

Stiffens Penalties Florida Black Bear Poaching

https://www.clickorlando.com/news/florida/2020/06/20/florida-governor-stiffens-penalties-against-bear-poaching/?fbclid=IwAR1XEDx91cVXs5QVW7TW2h-BChd3piUOxI_I7i5UxF9xL82CAP0sZf7xzoM VM321 (talk) 11:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2021

The line with citation #148, claiming “Ron Desantis supports an audit of The Federal Reserve”, is a dead link and the link needs to be removed as does the unsubstantiated claim on this protected Wikipedia page.

Thank you 2601:240:E300:D4E0:6D21:E91D:B212:8352 (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done Added the archive link for the broken page rather than removing the entire statement and reference Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 22:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

COVID

The first sentence of this section says there were "mixed reviews" by experts and the media of his handling of COVID, yet only critical opinions are included. The entire section is written in a negative tone. That doesn't seem very balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:E101:D8C9:B495:763F:9040:246 (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• In March 2021, Politico described DeSantis as the most "politically ascendant" governor in the country, as his controversial policies had been at that point "short of or even the opposite of ruinous", while Florida at that point had "fared no worse, and in some ways better, than many other states". - added. starship.paint (exalt) 03:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Citing a five month old source regarding a fast moving topic like COVID-19 is ill-advised. Cases in Florida are ten times higher than a couple of months ago, and a search today on Google News for stories about DeSantis and COVID-19 show that the coverage of him on this issue in August 2021 is overwhelmingly negative. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
    • @Cullen328: - then you can add such content since you are familiar with it. Wikipedia does not only point the latest coverage. We are presenting his overall history. Perhaps coverage was negative, then positive, then negative again. It does not mean it was wholly negative. I also never claimed that his current coverage is positive. starship.paint (exalt) 06:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Starship.paint, as you know, you are personally and individually obligated to comply with the neutral point of view core content policy. Adding a five month old source when COVID-19 cases are ten times higher today is not NPOV. So, I am asking you to make corrections to bring the article closer to NPOV. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
        • @Cullen328: - again, you are acutely aware of such sources, not me. Why don't you bring them to the table so I can evaluate them? I'm not even standing in the way of you adding them. starship.paint (exalt) 08:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2021

The mask mandate ban was struck down by a judge. 68.53.219.198 (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2021

Plz give me edit access UWU GrantDraws (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Roman Catholic???

Resolved

 – Marking this resolved. User has issue is with Wiki guidelines. There's two reliable sources that state he's Catholic. That's sufficient. Nemov (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I see that in the Personal Life section, it is written that "DeSantis" is a Roman Catholic. It references a website named "rollcall.com"

Firstly, I do not believe the site titled "rollcall.com" is an official website. I will go on to say, it is not an official website and should not be used as a source.

I searched all over for information on him "being a Catholic," and did not find any other sources confirming that anywhere. I did find a news article that mentioned he is Catholic, but without any kind of assertation as to how that was verified. Sadly, I think the author of that news article may have simply looked up his religious affiliation here on Wikipedia...

I think it is safe to say he is Christian, but in terms of being a Roman Catholic, I don't think that can be ascertained at this point. His own website and biographies lack any mention of his religious faith.

I welcome anyone to find a clear, established, and verifiable source of DeSantis asserting he is/or was a Catholic (even a video and or interview where he asserts his religious beliefs and/or faith) and include that in this article, otherwise, this information should be removed. 71.183.198.106 (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@curbon7 Do NOT remove this part in the talk section. You are welcome to do the work required to find a source for what is unverifiable information. You wrote "yeah let's just get this out of here," but did absolutely nothing to address the topic. That's not how editing works. You seem way too active on editing in the talk page for this artcile. And from what I can see, only in a negative way. If you can't contribute anything, then find something else to do that doesn't involve this article! Delete this again and I will get your account banned. 71.183.198.106 (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

CQ Rollcall is indeed a reliable source. Besides the point, here is a Sun-Sentinel article, another reliable source. Also, please see WP:INTIM. Curbon7 (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree. CQ Rollcall is a reliable source. This really is a non-issue and the hostility is unnecessary. - Nemov (talk) 00:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Great that you both are in agreement, YET, no additional sources have been provided still. Once again, a bunch of detraction, but no resolution of the issue is at hand. Maybe you should see about not editing away pertinent content? The article you've provided from the Sun-Sentinel is literally the same news article I made mention of above in my original talk edit. There is no hostility. There is a zest for making verocious statements and providing verifiable sources, neither of which have been done for the statement on DeSantis being a Catholic. My point is this: Maybe he is, maybe he is not. But why is there information on Wikipedia establishing that he is if that isn't 100% verifiable? If it is so "important people know he is Catholic," why isn't any of that information provided on any of his personal websites? This is PRECISELY why Wikipedia continues to be a fallable source of information. That having information in an article that is not verifiable is a "non-issue" perfectly charactizes the culture responsible for misinformation on Wikipedia. 71.183.198.106 (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I insist you take any additional question regarding the reliability of sources to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Curbon7 (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2021

There is no citation for the statement that he graduated magna cum laude from Yale. The citation only says that he graduated to Yale. 2600:1700:2528:2900:ED68:A51E:A471:B7BA (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done:This is confirmed in another citation in the same paragraph. Nemov (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)