Talk:Ron DeSantis/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Beauty contest

• 
  Picture A
• 
  Picture B
• 
  Picture C
• 
  B, blue

Which picture would be best at the top? I say Picture B because he looks too stiff and formal in Picture A. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

B has very poor lighting and the contrast with the orange background is unquestionably bad. Like I said in the edit summary, A is not great (grainy) but it's the best we got since he never took a portrait. His congressional portrait is also 10 years old, so that's pretty much out of the question. I'll hunt through some state repositories and see if I can find anything better. Curbon7 (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok I browsed [1] until the point where I started to go insane and I was only able to find a couple decent ones. Literally none of the pictures on that site were taken with an HD camera, and he's stiff in literally every image (I guess it's a habit from his military days or something). This one (C) is the best quality of the bunch, but it isn't in 2:3. This one (D) is not the best resolution but is solid. This one from Flickr (E) is the least good of this bunch in my opinion, but isn't bad either. I think any of these 3 would be an upgrade over A and B. Curbon7 (talk) 04:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, this is what C looks like with a 2:3 crop. A little too close-up, but pretty good. I think we may have a winner. Curbon7 (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I think we should stick with the one that’s been there a long time (Picture A), until we have consensus for a new one. By the way, I will find out if the orange background can be changed to a better color. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Is there a specific color you would like the background? – Pbrks ^(t • c) 17:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I’m not very good when it comes to colors. How about his eye color? Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I made the background blue. Let me know if that works for you. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 20:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

With the change I'd go with Blue. Nemov (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I was actually pretty doubtful that it would look good even with a recolor, but I was wrong! That is actually quite a good image compared to the pool that is available, though obviously I still wish there was an official portrait. I would support either C (my alternate proposition) or D (blue). Curbon7 (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

”B, Blue” looks best, thanks to User:Pbrks for that. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a portrait on commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gov_Ron_DeSantis_Portrait.jpg Putitonamap98 (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• I think we should use the official portrait. This is standard for all elected officials. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 17:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed, we did the same thing for Rick Scott when he was governor. 47.223.90.202 (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Is that really the official portrait? I can't find it at the original source.

  This is another photo from the same source. It's not an official portrait either.

  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ron_DeSantis_February_7_2019.jpg Nemov (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  The picture mentioned above at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gov_Ron_DeSantis_Portrait.jpg comes from a URL that says “osteopathic medicine group”. So I’m not sure it was meant as an official portrait. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Exactly, I agree with @Iamreallygoodatcheckers that the article should use the official portrait, but I don't think the one cited by @Putitonamap98 is the official portrait. As was mentioned before, this discussion is because there wasn't an official portrait available. Nemov (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Iamreallygoodatcheckers, the problem is that DeSantis never took an official portrait. The most recent official portrait we have is his congressional portrait from 2013. This is the one he uses on his website, but his appearance has changed quite considerably since then. Curbon7 (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Oh ok. If that's the case I support option C. It looks the best. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 22:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Always use an official portrait if possible, or if not, at least one with a tie. I'd vote option A. Dr. Blazer (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• I prefer Option C, followed by Option A. His expression in B looks unnatural and pained, and the lighting is too uneven/dramatic. — Goszei (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option C looks the best IMO. B looks very awkward. GeorgeBailey (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I prefer Option C, though B is the highest resolution option, so I would prefer that secondly. A just looks odd. Mycranthebigman of Alaska ^_^ 23:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Official Portrait?

Most US politicians have official portraits and I assume Ron DeSantis does too? Can we source this portrait and use it in the lede? Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 05:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Valgrus Thunderaxe, No, Ron DeSantis does not have an official portrait as governor; he just never took one. His most recent official portrait was his congressional portrait from 2013, but his appearance has changed considerably since then. Curbon7 (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe there's no official portrait, and I don't feel his appearance has changed considerably since 2013 (If it had, they'd (the state of Florida) commission a new portrait, wouldn't they?). Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Valgrus Thunderaxe, no like he literally didn't take a gubernatorial portrait. I have no idea why. Curbon7 (talk) 08:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't know if this is an "official portrait" or not, but Desantis is front-and-center right here, on what is the state of Florida's web site. https://www.flgov.com I would argue that's a de-facto official portrait of the governor, and I'm not sure what the reticence or controversy regarding displaying this picture in the article is actually about. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 12:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

BTW - the image name is Ron_DeSantis,_Official_Portrait,_113th_Congress.jpg. So I think that's an official portrait, and I'll edit the article to reflect this, as is customary with articles of other politicians. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit because it's not clear to me if that's an "official portrait" or not. That's a congressional portrait, but Florida's web site would lead one to believe they consider it to be an official portrait even if it was not commissioned by the state (they retain "official" in the filename). I would argue the state considers this to be the governor's official portrait, but I'm leaving it at that because I don't know how to otherwise handle this. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Italian ancestry?

In the Early life and education section, it says his mother was born Karen Rogers. Then it says "He is of Italian ancestry with all of his great-grandparents born in Italy" and there is a citaion 2. DeSantis is a Latino word from Ancient Rome. It means "devout" and "holy". Latino was spoken in Ancient Italy before the Roman Empire and the creation of the Italian, French, Spanish, English, etc. languages. DeSantis's mother's maiden name, "Rogers", is an English surname. Evidently, he's not completely Italian. Shouldn't Wikipedia use more reliable sources for citations? Sofiamagnotte (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

He has Italian ancestry. It's cited. I don't understand the objection. If the article said "he's 100% Italian" then there would be an issue, but it doesn't say that. There's nothing wrong with the wording or the source. Nemov (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Then you just didn't understand. The article implies he's 100% Italian by saying that all of his great-grandparents were born in Italy. But, the article says that his mother's maiden name was "Rogers" which would imply a great-grandfather on his maternal side came from England. Sofiamagnotte (talk) 07:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The surname “Rogers” was originally “Ruggiero” but it changed. See Anglicisation and Americanization (immigration). Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Now, you're a bright and resourceful Wikipedian! The Italian first name and surname "Ruggerio" does translate into "Roger". I'm Italian, so I know. His family added an "s" at the end when they changed it; making it "Rogers" as in the actors Ginger Rogers and Roy Rogers. This helpful information about his family's name change should be included in the article if it's going to maintain that all of his great-grandparents came from Italy. Thank you for the impressive information. Sofiamagnotte (talk) 07:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Unless it's cited by a WP:RS, the inclusion about the name change would be considered WP:OR and doesn't belong in this article. As it stands, the article has a WP:RS that all of his great-grandparents were born in Italy and no further clarification is necessary. Nemov (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Just because all of his great-grandparents were born in Italy, doesn't mean there couldn't have been a United State's maritial union between his Latino (Italian) side and a person of Anglo-Saxon ancestry surnamed Rogers during the following years within the United States. Sylvester Stallone is called the "Italian Stallion", yet he's French and Jewish on his mother side (which has been noted on Wikipedia). Robet DeNiro is very Latino-looking, but he's only Italian on his paternal grandfather's side. Robert DeNiro's actually of mixed ancestry owing to maritial unions within the United States (which has been noted on Wikipedia, too). If the article is going to claim that Ron DeSanis is Italian and all of his great-grandparents came from Italy, it ought to explain his mother's maiden name Rogers or say that he is of Italian and English ancestry because Rogers is not an Italian name. The article is badly written. Sofiamagnotte (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The article makes no claims that aren't backed by sources. If you want to make changes do it and back them with WP:RS. Nemov (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Right-wing populist remark

Someone has recently edited the page to include a comment that DeSantis is "a right-wing populist". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, has no place for political slur and partisan opinions presented in a factual manner. The definition of populism may vary. Every politician has to appeal to the people in some shape or form, but it doesn't necessarily constitute populism. Populism, according to Wikipedia, is associated "with anti-establishment and anti-political sentiment". Ron DeSantis was a congressman and is an incumbent governor of the state of Florida. Consequently, he's neither anti-establishment nor anti-political. I would also like to not that senator Bernie Sanders is not labeled populist in his respective article. I strongly suggest either removing this remark altogether or stating clearly that it is an opinion of him held by the liberal representatives of the populace. All the best! 2600:1700:BFC0:17C0:C017:5EC4:3D35:5CC6 (talk) 05:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I’ve tagged that sentence. If it says he’s “considered” X, Y, and Z then we should say by whom, and when. There are also way too many footnotes at the end of that sentence. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

it's not that he "is" a populist, it's that he's considered a right-wing populist. Wouldn't you say that the number of sources I provided would back up that he's considered such? And it's not even partisan, much less a "slur" - the Washington Examiner and the National Review's Rich Lowry, both firmly right-wing/conservative sources, are among the sources I cited.

Jenny Death (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

This is discussed further below, but I don't think the section even belongs there... just list his positions. This "what do people consider him" doesn't exist on other similar articles. Nemov (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Preface to political positions

The following was recently added:

“ DeSantis is considered a Trumpist, Tea Party conservative, and right-wing populist.

References

”

This is poorly written, it doesn’t say who “considers” DeSantis to be those things, nor when. And the big bunch of footnotes is excessive. I suggest rewriting like this:

“ DeSantis is a conservative, which is reflected in his political positions on controversial issues. In 2015, the tea party movement was active in politics, and groups aligned with it endorsed DeSantis. Former Congressman and former Republican David Jolly says DeSantis could be “Trump’s heir”, whereas Rich Lowry of National Review says DeSantis could succeed as Trump’s opponent, while the so-called Never Trump movement is split as to whether DeSantis’s positions are compatible with theirs. Writing in the Washington Examiner and the Financial Times respectively, Salena Zito and Janan Ganesh have characterized DeSantis and his views as “conservative populism” and “competent populism”.

References

”

This way, the references are matched up with the separate assertions, and the latter are fleshed out. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

That's nonsense. The added text reflected the copious sourcing and your version is deflection and OR. You are welcome to fix the "who" tagged sentences if that is your concern. The rest of your complaint is invalid. SPECIFICO talk 16:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we each think the other is full of nonsense. Let’s see what others think about whether I’ve accurately paraphrased these sources. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

That's nonsense as well. Why? Because you need consensus for your edits, and you are not getting consensus for your edits, because they are flawed as previously explained. SPECIFICO talk 18:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you think you’re entitled to fight consensus or object to consensus for any reason you want? Wikipedia has a policy called WP:PRESERVE, and you have not addressed why you think 0% of what I wrote, and 100% of what you removed, is objectionable to you. It’s patently absurd that 0% satisfies Wikipedia policy. Indiscriminately blanking whole paragraphs is not good editing, unless the whole paragraph is no good and you carefully explain why. See also WP:DRNC. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Delete the entire section and merge the relevant things that happened during DeSantis' tenure as governor in the "Governor of Florida" section. I'm looking at the articles for Gavin Newsom and Brian Kemp and there's not this ridiculously bloated section documenting every thought the governor has had in the past. I know DeSantis is high profile, but this article is just out of hand covering every single thing that's been reported. This should just stick to major events during the tenure of DeSantis. Nemov (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn’t object to spinning off a Political positions of Ron DeSantis article. But then they would still have to be summarized in this section per WP:SS. And I think the introductory paragraph that I’ve drafted would be okay to start both this section and/or the spinoff. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

A separate article is an idea that I was mulling over, if the consensus is to save all this information. Again, much of this can be rolled into the tenure section and link out a larger article if necessary. Looking at the articles for Barack Obama and George W. Bush you can see examples of how to manage articles more efficiently. This article really needs to be summarized better. Nemov (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

If you put “Political position of” in the search box, it’s fairly standard for high-profile politicians. Likewise, given the length of the Covid section in this BLP, that’s crying out for a spinoff article too. Summarizing here will likely be problematic, because even the most innocuous paraphrasing is being challenged, in essence, for not being anti-DeSantis enough. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a link to any editor opposing content "because it is not anti-DeSantis engough, you really need to strike that and drop the battleground nonsense. SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, my observation of your comments in this talk are hostile in nature. Can you dial it back a bit to find consensus? That would be a lot more constructive than calling others out for battleground and calling their opinions nonsense. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it’s better to criticize edits rather than editors. If I linked to specific edits then I’d be doing both. That said, please stop making silly unfounded accusations against me, such as “deflection” and “nonsense”, et cetera. If what I say about biased editing hits home, then maybe it should, but I haven’t accused you of that here today. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The Mitt Romney section on his political positions is probably a good rule of thumb[2]. It avoids opinions about Romney's politics and just lists his reliable sourced positions on issues.

With that in mind there's no need for this proposed preface. My recommendation is to narrow the section to major issues. Leave topics like the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (which have very little to do with DeSantis) in a separate article. Nemov (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:REDFLAG, you would need a source that says he has been classified as a right-wing populist. It does not mean btw right-wing+populist, but is an actual ideology. Experts have explained its features and which groups belong to it. The other problem is that political terms used to describe Western democracies generally are not applied to the U.S., which has its own history and terminology and is generally studied in isolation. It is probably more accurate to say that DeSantis shares some aspects of right-wing populism. But that's not particularly significant. TFD (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

* This is what I propose. No summary is needed. This section needs to be cut down to major topics that he's faced as governor. Everything else goes to a new "political positions of" article.

Keep: - Economy - Education - Environment - LGBT Rights - Voting Rights

(Again, this could be just folded into the tenure section)

Move: - Cannabis - Foreign Relations - Gun Law - Health Care - Immigration - Law Enforcement - Reproductive rights and abortion - Russia Investigation - Technology companies - Term limits and pensions - Veterans

This would be a much cleaner way to organize all this content and start making this article easier to read. Nemov (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

How did you determine which subjects are worth including here and which are moved elsewhere? I think a better approach would be to cover the subjects in detail in the split off article and summarize his positions on these major issues in this one. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

People can debate what is moved, but his opinion about topics like the "Russian Investigation" has zero to do with his job as governor of Florida. Again, by reviewing articles like Barack Obama and George W Bush is a good rule of thumb. This article is just overgrown and needs to be summarized better. Nemov (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

If we are to reorganize this section, I suppose I don't have many complaints about your idea - I think it does a good job at separating his key issues (aside from...maybe the environment? though his official website does list it as one of his primary issues, so I guess that justifies it even if it's not something I'd have thought about as a primary focus of his).

Re: Listing him as a right-wing populist or any other political label that he's classified as - while I suppose we could get it out of this section, should we really entirely remove it from the article? People like Donald Trump and Mitt Romney have mentions of what they're typically classified as in their articles, albeit within the opening paragraphs instead. Jenny Death (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Such "considerations" are absent from Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama. Articles like this should just stick with facts and not opinions. DeSantis is a Republican governor from Florida. For this article needs less bloat, not more of it. Nemov (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Being governor is indifferent, and not his main claim to fame. He represent another shift to the far right and introduces highly controversial legislation, which is what should we be covering. Dimadick (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

DeSantis isn't known for being the governor of Florida? That's certainly why he's well known. I understand he's high profile, but so are Barack Obama and Gavin Newsome. This article needs a lot of work and less op-ed content. Nemov (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Huh? Clinton's article mentions within its first paragraph that he's considered a centrist / "New Democrat", and Biden's article has an entire section generally dedicated to his political positions, with the first sentence of that section also labeling him politically. Obama seems like an outlier here, but I really don't see why there shouldn't be at least some mention of what he's generally considered as.

In any case, I'd hardly call noting that his policies are considered populist overall "bloat", especially relative to some of the actual bloat you've already pointed out. Jenny Death (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

A sentence calling a politician a centrist is a far cry from the summary that @Anythingyouwant proposed above and the original summary that was added. If you want to say that DeSantis is a populist Republican you can put that in the main summary. Again, unless someone has like a strong objection I'm going to go ahead and be bold and change this entire section. This article needs serious work. Nemov (talk) 13:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• I created a draft for the Political Positions of Ron Desantis. I used Political positions of Mitt Romney as an example. Reviewing that article there's needs to be a summary for the political positions. So this conversation can move on to that article. I'm open to suggestions. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• I've created Political Positions of Ron DeSantis and moved content over. Editors can discuss what content goes where, but this is a good start and helps with the WP:TOOBIG issue. The article was over 60kb. It probably needs to be under 50kb for readability. Future divisions may be necessary. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks Nemov. By the way, the wikilink you gave above didn't work because of the first letter in the word "Positions" so I created a redirect Political Positions of Ron DeSantis. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Roman Catholic?

This article claims Ron DeSantis is a Roman Catholic. I wasn't able to find evidence of this ANYWHERE. The site which is used as a reference for the claim that he is Catholic is a site I am unfamiliar with, and am doubtful of its validity. I think it is important that another source be acquired to substantiate this claim. If one does a simple web search, there are more hits claiming he is Jewish, than claims that he is Christian. What I did assert for certain is that DeSantis has NOT affirmed his religious beliefs. This needs to be verified. Simply because a person attended Catholic school does not make him/her Catholic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.80.133 (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

This article doesn't make claims. This is in the article because it's sourced. If you have a source that says something else, please feel free to add it. However, just because you're unfamiliar with a website doesn't mean it's not verified. I didn't look very hard and found this[3] immediately. Nemov (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Look, guy. You seem to be way too active on DeSantis's page, and also are extremely rude.

I've perused your activity, and your activity on this page exceeds a healthy amount.

I've looked at your reponses to others and they're always the same. You always want to keep the page as it is. The page cannot be as you want it. It has to be reflective of fact.

It is a claim! A random webpage and one news article do not an Encyclopedia make. Do what you will, but my next steps will be to move for arbitration on this issue.

If you're so certain of the information, find additional valid sources! Shouldn't be so hard. 66.66.80.133 (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The source is literally his CQ Roll Call profile, stemming from data collected by CQ and Pew Research [4]. That is just about as definitive as it gets. Curbon7 (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

You saying a website is definitive doesn't make it definitive. Find another source. 66.66.80.133 (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

You're not going to get very far in arbitration with personal attacks. If you have an issue with my guidance feel free to debate your position.I just made a huge change to this article recently so I take issue with the characterization that I'm stonewalling. The accusation simply isn't rooted in fact. Nemov (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Changing the article to what you want it to be doesn't make it inclusive of others' desires. You're completely missing the point.

Find another source, or this information should be removed.

I can easily reference sources that state that in actuality DeSantis has not affirmed his religious affiliation. 66.66.80.133 (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I REALLY hope this reference can put this issue to bed. The following is an excerpt from a Tamba Bay Times article. In the article, THE PRESS SECRETARY FOR DESANTIS states: "The governor is a Christian..."

Source: https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2022/09/12/what-message-is-desantis-sending-with-religious-full-armor-of-god-rhetoric/

Please update the article to be reflective of fact. If not, I could go ahead and do that. Advise. Best wishes. 66.66.80.133 (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

You haven't presented anything that would change the already well sourced fact. Best of luck with whatever it is you're threatening to do. Nemov (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I have provided an excerpt directly from DESANTIS' PRESS SECRETARY that states DeSantis is a Christian. His press secretary does not identify Desantis as a Catholic. This is information directly from a DeSantis staffer documented in a News Article. This information is of a primary source, contrary to the CQ source listed in the Wikipedia article that does not make any mention of how it was determined he is "Catholic."

What is the problem with you wanting to identify DeSantis as a Catholic when he clearly is not?

I'm not "threatening" to do anything. A press staffer for DeSantis has identified that DeSantis is a Christian, not a Catholic. This is in a news article that directly quotes a DeSantis staffer and is the most updated information as of 2022. If you do not make the required changes, I will. 66.66.80.133 (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Your "excerpt" (which I linked to in my first response) doesn't say anything that conflicts with the current article. The Catholic Church is largest of the three major branches of Christianity. Catholics call themselves Christians. The article says he was raised Catholic. Nowhere in the article does it say that he doesn't consider himself to be Catholic. So no, it's not contrary to any source. This is one of the more bizarre discussions I've had on Wikipedia over the years. Nemov (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Once again, that isn't for you to decide.

Yes, everyone knows Catholics are Christians. That doesn't mean all Christians are Catholics.

At this point, all we know for certain is that DeSantis is a Christian.

That the news article goes on further to state that he "was raised Catholic" is exactly what I've been alluding to. He was raised Catholic and he attended Catholic schools. That is fact. No one is arguing against that.

Perhaps you will go on to say that every person who is raised Catholic remains a Catholic for his/her lifetime? Is that the claim you're making now? Because that's the problem with this article as a whole. There are so many claims. And yet, there's no controversy section. This Wikipedia article is so tightly controlled. Almost as if someone is constantly grooming this page to have it appear a certain way... "2 users" (or is it "3" or "4?") in particular...

This discussion is bizarre, because YOU have made it bizarre. For us to "discuss" whether Catholics are considered Christians and if someone who is raised Catholic remains a Catholic across a life span is not the purview of making sure Wikipedia articles reflect fact.

I'm not going to argue with you anymore. I would go ahead and make the changes, but I know full well that since you constantly manipulate this page (and other pages throughout Wikipedia), you'll just keep reverting the page back.

However, the changes will be made.

The Wikipedia article cannot state he is a Catholic when we have DeSantis' press secretary in a news article from 09/2022 literally stating DeSantis is a Christian. 66.66.80.133 (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Lol. Curbon7 (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Ron DeSantis

Ron DeSantis is not currently a member of the military as mistakingly represented in his bio. Catdaddy423 (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Catdaddy423, he is still active in the Navy Reserve. Do you have a source that states he is no longer serving? SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (contribs)} 19:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Serving per this. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Blue Collar Family

@Thespearthrower made an addition[5] about DeSantis being "born to a blue-collar family." I'm not sure about the source and it's already been reverted for another reason. Please find consensus here for change since multiple users have questions about inclusion. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

If your reason for opposing the inclusion of this content is the source, we can completely eradicate your worries, without you even needing to explain why you "aren't sure" about the source. After all, I have found multiple sources. Why, here's a source making the claim already in use in the article: https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/02/09/ron-desantis-capitol-hill-loner-fox-news-fixture-trump-favorite-in-florida-governors-race/

There, your objections put to rest. Now you don't oppose the inclusion of the content, right? Thespearthrower (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a pretty poor source. Are there others? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there's one already in use in the article, plus the one I added, plus this one from the NGA https://www.nga.org/governor/ron-desantis/ and a bunch of others. There should be no opposition on the ground of sourcing. Thespearthrower (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

And yet there is. It looks, so far, like no reliable, independent sources have mentioned this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The NGA has no consensus on reliability, and to my knowledge no source mentioned does. When you have a consensus to blacklist the sources here, you may say they are unreliable. Also, reliable sources don't have to be independent although tampabay is independent. Thespearthrower (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The Tampa Bay Times simply quotes a former teammate of DeSantis. It doesn't appear to have done any journalistic work to verify that the characterization is correct. So regardless of its status as RS (I agree that it should be considered marginal, unless we're using it for local man-bites-alligator stuff) the source doesn't actually support the assertion. With regard to the other sources: yes, sources do need to be independent to establish notability for inclusion. This includes the notability of factoids or relatively subjective descriptors like having "blue-collar roots". Generalrelative (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Blue collar is not subjective. Blue collar has a clear definition: "relating to manual work, or workers." Your difficulty in defining words does not mean others cannot define them or have trouble defining them. Blue collar is clear-cut. On the other hand, The Tampa Bay Times (which is not blacklisted or degraded) includes the information, the writer doesn't have to say "I agree that DeSantis was raised blue collar" or even "DeSantis was raised blue collar". There is absolutely no reason DeSantis' former teammate would make up DeSantis being blue collar, and we as editors have to be reasonable in our editing. If multiple sources (none of which are blacklisted or degraded) include that he was raised in a working class family, we absolutely should recognize that these sources are being reliable in regard to this fact. Thespearthrower (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I'm pretty sure I'm not the one having trouble here. Good luck persuading others to adopt the disputed content with that charming collaborative attitude. Generalrelative (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

You shouldn't judge content based on your feelings towards another editor or their attitude.

Also, I mean no hostility towards you, but this is the second time I have seen you arguing content shouldn't be included because you can't define a word. If you have an issue defining words, you should read a few dictionaries before you argue about whether or not those words are subjective. Thespearthrower (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

we as editors have to be reasonable in our editing.

We also have to be reasonable with each other. You have made a change for which multiple editors have raised objections. That doesn't automatically mean they're right, but reasonable people can disagree. There's no reason to be hostile. I've made plenty of changes in the past that didn't find consensus. It happens. If you can find examples similar to your inclusion with similar sources I would be open to considering it, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. Nemov (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I am being reasonable, any reasonable person can ascertain that blue collar is an extremely objective phrase. Imagine if I were to tell you that "planets" were subjective. "Hmm, well some people say Pluto is a planet.." There comes to a point where the truth does sound rude, but the truth still needs to be said. Generalrelative in multiple places now (in discussion with me) has had issues defining words or has had bizarre takes on the subjectivity of words. Now, given that I'm an ESL editor, I feel it is completely reasonable to say I am not being hostile to suggest that if he can't define words he shouldn't be part of the discussion on them. Thespearthrower (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Since we already list the occupations of both of his parents, there is little purpose to adding "blue-collar" as a descriptor. — Goszei (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

There is precedent for including income class in childhood in the lead. Examples:

FDR

Mark Twain

Joseph Stalin

Richard Nixon

Mao Zedong

There is far more precedent to include the income/social class they were raised in in the lead.

Thespearthrower (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

For all of that list besides maybe Nixon, their socio-economic status growing up is an absolute core part of their biography. For someone like DeSantis, it is not. Curbon7 (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

DeSantis' social class growing up is obviously a core part of his biography, he's been described as a populist, and it's foolish to pretend like his stances are less affected by his upbringing than FDR, Stalin, Nixon or Mao's. I'll concede on Mark Twain. Thespearthrower (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Tenure aside from COVID-19 pandemic & COVID-19 pandemic

Both these sections could be summarized better. The "Tenure aside from COVID-19 pandemic" is a pretty bad title. That entire section probably needs to be broken into smaller sections that are individually titled. The "COVID-19 pandemic" section has gotten so long it could justify its own article. If not, it could be summarized a lot better. I just did this with the political position section (which could also use some more cuts), but I'll leave this one up for someone who is a better at making cuts than me. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

C’mon User:Nemov, practice makes perfect, please go ahead and try. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Those sections are exhausting. There's too many things mentioned and some issues with WP:NPOV. I don't have time at the moment to carve through it. Plus, we need a team of experiences editors to help with it or it's going to be a fight against partisans. Nemov (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I took a stab at summarizing some of the longer sections in the political positions sections. Some of the contact there could be moved to the tenure. Added tags as well. The COVID section is kind of long. Not sure if it justifies its own article though. It might need to carved down significantly. Nemov (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2022

It should be noted that DeSantis was not an actual Navy Seal. Brozell7 (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: In 2007, DeSantis reported to the Naval Special Warfare Command Group in Coronado, California, where he was assigned to SEAL Team One and deployed to Iraq[22] with the troop surge as the Legal Advisor to the SEAL Commander, Special Operations Task Force-West in Fallujah. looks pretty clear. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Military awards

Can someone fix his ribbon rack to correct represent what it should look like by moving his riffle and pistol ribbon next to each other. And moving his overseas ribbon to the left 2601:347:C302:74A0:691B:EF32:9F4E:5351 (talk) 07:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Just a question. This does not make sense to me, “ The U.S. Department of Justice appointed him to serve as a Special Assistant U.S. attorney[22] at the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Middle District of Florida. DeSantis was assigned as a trial defense counsel until his honorable discharge from active duty in February 2010..”

I do not understand being assigned as a defense attorney in the office of the u. s attorney, but maybe I’m not reading this correctly. 2601:5C3:C202:8C90:95DA:2443:769F:4A89 (talk) 04:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Flood and Storm response reversal

I've undone the good faith edit of the DeSantis position reversals on flood relief to NY & NJ in 2013, and disaster declaration regarding Hurricane Ian in 2022. In 2013, ''The Hill" and the "Tampa Bay Times" define what he did in 2013, and the NYT noted the "shoe on the other foot" reversal requesting disaster declaration that facilitates flood relief to Florida in 2022. It's not my position. It's the paper's, likely joined by many others. It's hardly "undue." Activist (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

These are political positions on two separate things. A bill passed by Congress and the president's ability to declare a major disaster. Does this spell out a specific political position? A political position enough to justify an entire section? No, not really.

That aside if there's consensus to include something this trivial it should be at Political Positions of Ron DeSantis. If this article included every single thing the NYT mentioned about DeSantis it would go on forever. This article is already bloated and needs better summarizing. Nemov (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

They're precisely the same things. I found myself channel surfing yesterday and two different networks each mentioned and compared those opposing positions on the same issue taken by DeSantis. It's three major print media sources and two broadcast sources both pointing to the same contrast. It's, "whose ox being gored?" Then I Googled the terms DeSantis and ex-FL Rep Ted Yoho, who joined in voting against relief for Sandy victims in 2013, and hurricanes Sandy and Ian, got 690,000 hits, and went to a Seattle Times story for arms'-length, Pacific Coast commentary. It turned out to be a reprint of a NYT story. It mentioned the "No" votes by the only two of 16 FL Republican's rejecting Sandy relief in 2013, and included negative comments by two Republican ex-Congressmen, David Jolly and Peter King, about Ron's contrasting votes. [https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/desantis-once-a-no-on-storm-aid-petitions-a-president-hes-bashed/} You presume that your opinion stands as more consequential than theirs, it would seem. How do you come to such austere authority? Activist (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, but you haven't added anything that addresses why this should be included in this article and not Political Positions of Ron DeSantis. If coverage is enough to justify inclusion the article prose size would be 500kb. Nemov (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

There's a huge amount of coverage, which I've indicated. I googled the dual situations, Sandy and Ian together, and got 690,000 hits. DeSantis doesn't seem to have "a" position on flood damage response or relief. He has positions on what he believes benefits his career. This situation personifies those relationships. I don't think there should be a "political positions" article on this and many other politicians. 2001:5B0:293D:7A68:B5D7:9381:332:F6C8 (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Activist, did you forget to log in? --Malerooster (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:SPINOFF articles become necessary when an article gets WP:TOOBIG. Nemov (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I would not include this "material" in the subject's bio. If the "material" is going to be added by consensus, then it would be better suited for a sub article about political positions if included at all. --Malerooster (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I'd been having connection problems and did that accidentally. Activist (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The reason this should be included is because it's not about the "Political Positions of Ron DeSantis." Quite the contrary. It's about, as a few more commentators that I'd heard last night have pointed out, the "hypocrisy of Ron DeSantis." Hypocrisy is not a "political position." Activist (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Alt proposal for y'all: Create Governorship of Ron DeSantis article. Could shorten this article by a wide margin. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a good idea. I created Political Positions of Ron DeSantis, if I find some extra time I'll try to work on this article. Nemov (talk) 15:00, 13 October 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"Don't Say Gay" Law in Lead

I'll bring this here since it was reverted[6]. 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)

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: [7]. 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)

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)

More photos

There’s a bunch of group photos here. The recent top photo is cropped from one of these group photos. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I just rolled it back to the one agreed upon in the previous discussion. Until there's an official portrait I'm fine with status quo. I don't see anything in these new photos that's an improvement. Nemov (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2022

I propose that the current sentence "Florida's death rate from COVID-19 (75,000 deaths) ended up being within the national average and Florida's economy fared better than many other U.S. states." be replaced with the following:

"Florida's rate of deaths due to COVID-19, as of November 2022, is 386 per 100,000, 18% higher than the national rate of 328 per 100,000 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html. Florida's high rate may be partially due to the state having the nation's highest concentration of citizens over the age of 75, for whom COVID was particularly deadly. However, a comparison of Florida's COVID-19 outcomes to another warm-weather state, California, showed that the mortality rates in Florida for children aged 5 to 14 was more than double, possibly due to children being physically present in school during the 2020-2021 school year in Florida, but not California. Florida also had higher death rates for older children and working-age adults, including all ages between 15 and 65, possibly due to fewer restrictions on bars, restaurants, and workplaces. Florida had slightly lower death rates than California for citizens over 75, which contributed to an overall similar age-adjusted death rate: 275 per 100,000 for Florida, and 267 per 100,000 for California. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-05-07/california-versus-florida-a-covid-reckoning?leadSource=uverify%20wall" Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxidleinahtan (talk • contribs) 22:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done I don’t disagree that this material could use improvement. However, it seems strange that this BLP does not mention excess mortality anywhere. My understanding is that excess mortality is the best possible gauge of how a state fared during the pandemic, and it includes things like suicide that were substantially affected by the pandemic and government response to the pandemic. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Teaching on slavery and the Civil War at Darlington

The article currently states, "A former student there stated that she recalls him teaching the Civil War from a perspective that slavery was justified and that the slaveholding Confederacy had reason to fight." The source includes a video that some of his former students made mocking his stance on the civil war. This doesn't seem relevant enough to include in a Wikipedia article, and I think it should be removed. However, because he is a controversial figure, I thought it was best to put the discussion on the talk page before taking action. Poppa shark (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like something that should be a part of a biography since it's just one report that's based on student recollection from 20 years ago. Nemov (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I undid part of Poppa shark’s edit.[8] Four reasons for removing the bit about slavery being justified: (1) it's inflammatory and would require stronger sourcing from other witnesses who would have been plentiful; (2) it's available in a handy quote that's been added to our footnote; (3) it's stated very equivocally in the cited source as something "sounded like" justifying instead of directly saying it was an attempted justification; and (4) the cited source directly says DeSantis was describing for argument's sake why the southern soldiers felt motivated so that's more worthy of including in this BLP's main text which we do. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Time Person of the Year Nomination

This has gone back and forth. I've removed it for now[9], but does a nomination for Time's person of the year belong in the lead? Seems pretty trivial to me. I'm not even sure if it should be included in the article let alone the lead. Nemov (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

A relatively meaningless acheivement lede-wise. Had he won that'd be a different story. Curbon7 (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Claims of witnessing Guantanamo torture

@Nemov: Why have you described Monthly Review [10] as an unreliable source for the statements made by Mansur Ahmad Saad al-Dayfi? Article submissions to the online journal are overseen by editors[11], so content published is being reviewed. Thanks. Simón, el Silbón (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Given the nature of the accusation this would require multiple reliable sources. You can find a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed here. I hope this helps, thanks! Nemov (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Very serious accusations surrounding torture, on a BLP, should absolutely have better sourcing than a single person's account published only in a small socialist magazine. Endwise (talk) 04:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Nemov and Endwise: Understood. Thank you for showing me about BLP. No bad intentions here :) --Simón, el Silbón (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, the person quoted wrote a book Don't Forget Us Here that (I am told) mentioned the same incident but did not mention DeSantis. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Here's the interview with Mansur Ahmad Saad al-Dayfi Empire Files, Ron DeSantis's Military Secrets: Torture & War Crimes, and here's a news story in Al Mayadeen English based on the interview. "I was screaming and he was smiling": DeSantis ran Guantanamo torture. A first-hand account on video makes it a bit more convincing. It also describes treatment of prisoners in general that was confirmed elsewhere. Wikipedia has included accounts of Chinese torture of Uyghurs, or Russian abuses in the Ukraine, sourced on a single person's account. --Nbauman (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

We need to wait for reliable sources to pick up on it though. At some point they probably will cover it to an extent, especially if he does run for president, at which point we can make a more reasoned determination, but the sourcing is just not there yet. Curbon7 (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree, and even at that point it probably won't merit more a sentence or two if it's a single allegation. Nemov (talk) 19:51, 16 December 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

This article also contains misleading statements about Florida's COVID-19 outcomes, which are inconsistent with the cited sources. The article states:

"Florida's death rate from COVID-19 (75,000 deaths) ended up being within the national average and Florida's economy fared better than many other U.S. states."

This is copied from a cited Encyclopaeda Brittanica article on Ron DeSantis, which itself cites no sources.

"Within an average" is not a statistical concept. This implies that Florida death rate is below the national average, which is incorrect per the Bloomberg article cited, and per other, more recent sources, e.g. Statista, or NY Times, the latter which shows the Florida death rate at 386 per 100,000, 18% higher than the US rate of 328 per 100,000.

The Bloomberg article also analyzes the specific age-related trends that are likely related to Florida's specific COVID-19 policies: "Young people have been much more likely to die of Covid-19 in Florida than in California, those 75 and older slightly less likely. Because Covid is so much deadlier for the old than the young, that works out to Florida having only a slightly higher age-adjusted death rate. But some of the age group differences are really big!

Florida’s Covid mortality rate for ages 5 to 14, for example, is more than twice California’s, a difference that seems like it probably has something to do with kids being physically in school in Florida but not in California during the 2020-2021 school year. Having restaurants, bars and other workplaces fully open may have contributed to Florida’s higher death rates for working-age adults. "

Note that the specific clause: "Florida's economy fared better than many other U.S. states." is vague, uses the weasel word "many" (how many? Without specificity, this is not a meaningful statement about economic outcomes), and cites no sources. It should be eliminated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxidleinahtan (talk • contribs) 22:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The RNA vaccine doesn't *change your own RNA* it uses your ribosomes to make new RNA. It never enters your own cell nuclei and your original DNA and RNA remain untouched. So the quote from The Hill makes perfect sense in that context. Mccartneyac (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The claims that Florida faired well/better then national average were brought up in a recent skeptics stack exchange question. Key points not addressed yet that came up as a result of the questions was that the claim that after adjusting for age 'Florida's COVID-19 death toll would be less than the national average' linked to a Bloomberg op ed ultimately traces to a think tank with politically biased motives and has little in way of methodology, making the claim effectively unproven and suspect. The only other factor they adjusted for was obesity, which has a heavy slant between republican and democratic states and thus means high obesity rates are linked to low covid mitigation rates, it's a perfectly selected criteria to 'adjust' for when you want to skew statistics. Though another answer does seem to suggest that the claim brought up two paragraphs above that Florida economy fared better then many U.S States is likely an accurate statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.16.98 (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

COVID

DeSantis' policies about COVID are a huge part of his tenure as governor, but it's taking up too much of this biography. It needs to be further folded into his tenure, summarized, or broken out into a separate article. The readable prose of this article has climbed over 50kb again and further work is needed to fight the bloat. Nemov (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

No to splitting to a separate article. The current issue is a result of some editors writing WP:PROSELINE. However, this can fairly easily be condensed down into encyclopedic prose by axing WP:UNDUE and/or irrelevant points. Curbon7 (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Link 28 is no longer working

Exactly what it says, I don't know where to find the original source, so may somebody quickly fix that link when they have time? RogueBaron (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I fixed the link. Nemov (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

AP African American Studies?

Hi, just checking before editing -- is there an existing consensus against adding content about DeSantis's ban of AP African American Studies (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article271821682.html)? It's had a lot of notable media attention but don't see it reflected here, so wanted to check if there was an existing consensus against it being on the page. Secarctangent (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

this is a new topic that deserves attention--go for it. The black community is very well organized and it is generating national attention to this development Rjensen (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It should go on the political positions article. It could be useful for here if it becomes a significant part of his biography. Nemov (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

New photo idea

I've seen a few archived discussions about changing the main photo for the article. The photo I used above would be the best. The problems with the current probably stem from it being awkward, I mean it was taken while he was about to speak at just a random moment in time. This one, like the photos used for the Greg Abbott and Jay Inslee articles, has him smiling while looking away from the camera, a more flattering expression, with a neutral background. Rexxx7777 (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree This is an improvement over the current picture. We just recently had this discussion, but if there's no strong objection this should work. Nemov (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to ping the users who discussed this last time to see if anyone objects. There's still not an official portrait. @Anythingyouwant:, @Curbon7:, @Dr. Blazer:, @GeorgeBailey:, @Mycranthebigman:, @Goszei:, @Iamreallygoodatcheckers:. Nemov (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. While I do prefer the current image for it's resolution & quality, as well as it's lighting, this one is a high enough resolution, and generally matches other photos. It's a hard choice, but I think it works better. ~ Mycranthebigman of Alaska ^_^ 17:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Support - this is a good image. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 17:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• I don’t recall if anyone ever gave a good reason not to use his official photo. The official photo is at https://www.flgov.com and that website elsewhere says, “Photos contained in these galleries are public record and may be printed at a photo lab of your choice, without written consent. Photos contained in these galleries may not be altered.” https://www.flgov.com/photo-requests Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  Simple, the picture in the link you provided is his portrait from Congress. There's no photo there listed on the photo site as the official portrait of Ron DeSantis as governor. Nemov (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, okay, in that case the new proposed pic is fine. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• The problem with RDS photos is there doesn't seem to be any that are both high-quality/resolution and decent. The one proposed here is very poor quality when zoomed so far in, particularly on the top right corner. I think a longer crop is better in such a case; this could also be another alternative. However, I also don't see an issue in keeping the one at the moment. There isn't really a rush and it's the highest-quality one available. Additionally, there will be unlimited pictures if he does the thing. Curbon7 (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
• @Rexxx7777: there hasn't been a strong objection to the image change so I've added it back to the article. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Support; I think this one looks better, though if a better resolution version of this photo which complies with WP policies is available, then let's go with that one. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Conservatism Series

Does anyone object to removing this[12] from the article? This is biography for a politician. It's not part of a series on conservatism. The article needs less clutter and not more of it. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

We must remember the scope of the article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Nemov, the link you have given is not a diff, so it is difficult to figure out exactly what you’re referring to. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Here[13]. It's a big template. Nemov (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Down at the bottom of this BLP, just above the categories, there is a bunch of clutter, including but not limited to the item you’re referring to. Compare the bottom of other BLPs like George W. Bush which does not have such clutter. I support removing the clutter. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you talking about this?[14] I'm not sure what the guideline is on this stuff, but I agree it's of little use. Nemov (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I am talking about this:

• Statewide political officials of Florida
• Governors and executives of U.S. states and territories
• Members of the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida
• Republican Party nominees for governor of Florida (since 1953)
• COVID-19 pandemic in the United States
• Conservatism in the United States

Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)