Talk:Ron DeSantis

Trump and DeSantis

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/florida-playbook/2022/10/27/trump-desantis-rivalry-breaks-into-the-open-00063717

Interesting rivalry breaking out between Trump and DeSantis. Not sure it's ready to be in the artlcie yet and/or how to put it in. Lena Key (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

this is gonna be really fun to write about in the wikipedia page i tell you that Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

"Don't Say Gay" Law in Lead

I'll bring this here since it was reverted[1]. This piece of legistation doesn't belong in the lead of DeSantis' biography. It is WP:UNDUE to mention it in the lead. It's only a few sentences in the body and doesn't follow MOS:LEADBIO.

A reminder:

Well-publicized recent events affecting a subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most noteworthy: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each.

Just because something has been "discussed nationwide for many months" doesn't mean it's a key event in a person's biography. In this case, DeSantis is notable for being a governor and he became well known nationally for his COVID response (which is covered extensively on this article). His feud with Disney was also talked about for months and also doesn't deserve a mention in the lead. The lead should follow the body and when reviewing this article it is an undue to mention this piece of legislation in the lead. Nemov (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Too much prominence to include this content in the lead. I support removal per UNDUE and MOS:LEADBIO. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree. At the time this was first put into the lead, there was much less notable material about DeSantis in the article and in the public record. But it’s definitely worth covering in the article body. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

It's part of his carefully crafted headline issues to promote himself as a tough neo-MAGA guy. Maybe increase and improve the article text if you think that's not clear enough already. SPECIFICO talk 18:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you’re correct about that, then I think we would have to briefly explain the relevance in the lead, e.g. “This is significant because SPECIFICO says it's part of his carefully crafted headline issues to promote himself as a tough neo-MAGA guy.” Otherwise, the reader will be confused about why we have elevated this matter to the lead, but not other matters. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there are other editors who agree with what SPECIFICO is saying, so it's not just them. :)  Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

what an awful take.

he's espoused the policies he took action for, for years. 'neo-maga' lmao maga hates him now because trump is scared of him what are you on about Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Godofwarfan69420: MAGA is bigger than Trump now. See: Ron DeSantis: The Making and Remaking (and Remaking) of a MAGA Heir Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

lad surely you're not goody enough and clueless enough to take an opinion piece by vanity fair seriously lmaooo. MAGA will always only be trump. ik you're not informed enough IP, but the hardcore MAGA base is already turning on desantis because they're a cult. most people who espouse desantis now reject the label of 'maga republican', as seen by this poll - https://www.wfla.com/news/national/poll-republican-voters-prefer-desantis-over-trump-in-2024/

both you and specifico have rather obvious agendas to try and typecast desantis here, so not surprised Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2022

"Change incumbent to reelected" for Florida governor Ron DeSantis after the midterm election of 2022. Rescue119 (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: After being reelected he would remain the incumbent Cannolis (talk) 05:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19 Pandemic

The 2021 section says "At the event, a number of speakers spoke out against the vaccine and vaccine mandates, including one person who falsely claimed the vaccine "changes your RNA"." The vaccine does change your RNA, the viral RNA is taken up by cells and translated into the spike protein, that's how it works. This sentence is verbatim taken from The Hill, but is incorrect and should be changed. Obviously the vaccine does not change your DNA, but that's not what the sentence says. Source: basic science

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2022 (2)

Spelling Problem: Change "Gehkre" to "Gehrke" in reference No. 189 (which is a correction to the author's last name). XeLavend (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Investors

Can we add more information about his financial ties and who propped him up to become a senator? I know this request to be futile but just thought I'd ask. Vrachtwagenbestuurder (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Hurricane-Ian Joe-Biden Ron-DeSantis.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Abortion subtitle

Naming the category "abortion and reproductive rights" is biased. This category could be renamed "Social Issues", or simply "Abortion". Imagine if it was called "Fetal rights and right to life".2607:F2C0:92C2:1700:502C:854C:A5B6:C71 (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

"Abortion" would seem neutral to me, and it far more concise. I'll make the change. DFlhb (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

War in Ukraine

There should be a section about his opinions of the war here. Victor Grigas (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

That would be better suited for the Political positions of Ron DeSantis article. You can review and make updates there. Nemov (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ron DeSantis and Joe Biden.jpeg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

cool Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Military awards section

First, it's uncited, that's not good in a WP:BLP. Second, I think that the big flashy ribbon-thing is usually not included in bios, see for example John McCain or Dan Crenshaw. WP:OTHERCONTENT, sure, but still. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree, he's notable for being a politician. His military service is a part of his biography, but awards should only be mentioned if they're backed with WP:RS. I'd be in favor of removing the entire section. Nemov (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

There's also a long list in the infobox, also uncited. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Removed section and cut the ones in the infobox that weren't in Ron_DeSantis#Military_service. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Why no mention of his war crimes at GITMO?

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2022

Go to the governor’s website he was actually married 2009 not 2010 this page is wrong. 2601:58B:C680:7C00:71ED:4C3C:CDC2:B242 (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

covid in lede

During his tenure as governor, DeSantis resisted imposing restrictions for the COVID-19 pandemic in Florida, including face mask mandates, stay-at-home orders, and vaccination requirements, which was initially met with intense criticism, but was later vindicated as toll on Florida wasn't any worse from that elsewhere in the country, despite having less restrictions in place as well as a much older and at-risk populace. In May 2021, he signed into law a bill that prohibited businesses, schools, cruise ships, and government entities from requiring proof of vaccination.

what exactly is the issue with this according to whoever is removing it?? anyway, since y'all wanna argue and be petty, I'm giving an olive branch and editing the lede more to be streamlined. Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 04:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Many of your edits on this article are struggling to maintain NPOV tone. This article is going to be high profile for some time and considering it's about a high profile politician it's likely to be contentious at times. Additions should be well

sourced, neutral, and and easy to read. Nemov (talk) 05:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

well sourced? check, WSJ, politico, Wapo, are all great sources. it's not as if I linked the daily mail.

neutral? check

easy to read? check

desantis has a done a commendable job on covid and all I did is link articles by sources on the other side of the bench to him. politico Washington post, the Atlantic are all left of centre, and yet they're commending him. that's as neutral as it gets.

but then again, as I want to avoid excessive re-edits, I've shortened the paragraphs considerably and then merged them. does the job better Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

• has done a

Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Let me try to break down my issues with this paragraph:

• I would certainly label vindicated as a label that doesn't keep a NPOV tone.
• initially met with intense criticism: he definitely still faces criticism for his COVID-19 policies, which you can acknowledge even if you agree with him.
• [the] toll on Florida wasn't any worse from that elsewhere in the country is a claim that is demonstrably false and is shown to be false in the source you provided. The formatting of the links on elsewhere in the country is also incorrect.
• Your other sources are flawed. The WSJ article is an opinion piece, which cannot be used. The other two sources by Politico and Washington Post both focus on the political ramifications of his policies, not the actual health ramifications that you cite them for.
• A highly popular governor: approval ratings are usually kept out of leads unless they were in some way remarkable. DeSantis may be popular, but not to a level that would be remarkable.

Your editing on this page demonstrates a POV. For example, in your most recent edit, you labeled the Sun-Sentinel as liberal by referencing Media Bias/Fact Check. Firstly, this source has been established to be unreliable (WP:MBFC) by the Wikipedia community. But secondly, even if it was reliable (which it is not), MBFC labels the Sun-Sentinel as "Least Biased". And for the record, this was after I reverted this claim, which was at the time completely uncited. You have been engaging in edit warring to push this POV and I would urge you to stop. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 06:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

1. if your issue with vindicated is that it's a wrong term for an encyclopedia, then ok

2. he did face criticism at first, but no major news source nor any

3. no buddy, it's not demonstrably false. why lie so obviously? states like New York, New Jersey which had very restrictive laws, had a case rate, and death rate at a near equal rate to Florida. and when you account for Florida's aged population, the difference is negligible to near non existent. check out the sources I mentioned previously

4. the other sources by CNN etc are also opinion pieces tho? and uhm....you realise this article is chockfull of opinions and misrepresentations like those made by the sun sentinel lmao.

either way, I accede to your demands on the covid part. I have no intention of bringing back the vindicated statement because you and other editors keep arguing about it

however

5. he won an election in Florida, a perennial battleground state by a historic margin, (the greatest margin EVER FOR A REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE BTW), has high approval ratings in a state that still has close voter registration numbers etc. this is remarkable and definitely to a level that deserves the qualifier 'highly' so I shall be returning that to the article Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 06:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

• I'm happy with how that lead paragraph currently states things; seems like a good example of WP:Bold-refine. What specifically do you think should still be added to it? If it's the "vindication" of his COVID policy, then you should find a (preferrably non-right wing, as that would have more weight) WP:RS that states something to that effect, and the wording would have to depend on said WP:RS. DFlhb (talk) 12:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

  ye dw, I was the one who made it look the way it does now lol, I let the covid thing slide Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable source

There were a bunch of issues with the content which Godofwarfan69420 just tried to restore to the article. We can discuss them all in turn if necessary. In my view, the most glaring is the inclusion of an extremely unreliable source, The Capitolist: [2]. For those who don't feel like clicking through, we have three reliable sources backing up our claim that The Capitolist was revealed to be funded by dark money beginning in 2018 connected to Florida Power & Light (FPL) in 2022. This allowed FPL to request articles that would promote candidates, discourage deregulation, and attack reporters critical of FPL. No way in hell this is appropriate for a BLP. Generalrelative (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

even if the capitalist is a bad source, instead of removing the entire lede mindlessly, you could have pointed that out. I've removed the capitalist as a source now. and guess what. RCP is still a solid source. and IT'S FROM A HARVARD HARRIS POLL, READ THE SOURCE THOROUGHLY SMH Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

please don't keep reverting constantly. it takes time and effort to write content for an article. not so much for just casually deleting content without even discussing the matter at hand. Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you're going to have to actually persuade others rather than getting mad. That is, if you want to be effective here. And no, we do not typically report on individual polls, even high quality ones, and we certainly do not translate poll numbers to statements like "so-and-so is exceptionally popular." An no, RCP is a terrible source. Generalrelative (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

no, RCP is not a terrible source

furthermore, it's a poll form a highly respected poll IN ADDITION to a poll which the Miami chamber of commerce has linked. however, since there's no chance you're gonna listen, I'll edit the highly popular statement. there is no reason for editing the 'has been credited with' tho. and you still keep doing it. relax will ye Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

There's no clear consensus on RCP (see:WP:RSPSS, but it's certainly not a great source. The citation would need secondary sourcing to make a stronger case for inclusion. As far as polls are concerned this is leaning too close to original research. It's not an editor's job to interpret a poll. If there's WP:RS reporting on a poll then that could work. Nemov (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)