Talk:Ron DeSantis/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

COVID-19 section in the lead

DeSantis' handling of COVID-19 makes up something like half of the section of the article devoted to his tenure as the Governor of Florida (his main source of notability), and extensive sourcing support the idea that this is in fact a major part of his biography. As far as I can tell, the majority of national coverage of DeSantis for the past year has focused on this topic; nor is there any particular reason to think it will die down. I definitely don't think we can remove it from the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Not only does it not make up half of the section on his tenure as Governor, but this is an encyclopaedic article on an individual, not that individual’s role as Governor! There is simply far more to cover on him than that and the Covid section is not so much as a TENTH of the overall body which does not give it WP:NOTE for the lead on it’s own. Let alone a handful of cherrypicked lines that don’t really meet WP:NPOV standards. At the end of the day, this isn’t a case of debating what we personally think is most important to include or not to include (hence your comments about “as far as I can tell, the majority of national coverage on DeSantis this year…” is irrelevant - nobody cares what we can tell or have ‘reason to believe’ will happen in the future as none of that is even remotely evidence for an encyclopaedia), it’s about adhering to the encyclopaedic standard of what a lead of an individual is supposed to be, which is purely an overview on him/his life and a reflection of the content in the article body. There’s no way to pluck information about Covid without there being similar justification for plucking information about his military background, faith, policies, then it becomes a battle of which policies to include and how to phrase them and on and on it goes.

This type of stuff only invites WP:ACTIVISM, which then often devolves into administrative action being needed and bans being dished out when people realise they can’t come together in groups to generate ‘consensus’ on preferred versions that break project rules as the activism rule specifically guards against that and so on and so forth. The best way to avoid it is just to stick to strictly encyclopaedic overviews and not get bogged down on what policy to include or not to include based on subjective/personal measures (what you yourself see in the news, what your personal community is discussing in regards to him/her etc). Davefelmer (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTE doesn't apply here. I agree something on the order of two or three sentences is DUE for the lead, based on the weight of coverage afforded to DeSantis' response to COVID. I can't say that I feel the current version is a perfect summary of the body. In general, it does seem a bit off balance, though I think a fair bit of that is that the lead is too short overall for such a long article. Firefangledfeathers 21:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, let's look at this twofold. Firstly, I'd accept wording such as:

"During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Florida, DeSantis had positive approval ratings and was referred to as the most "politically ascendant" governor in the country as the state fared better than many others despite resisting restrictions such as face mask mandates, stay-at-home orders and vaccination requirements. However, he earned criticism, including from President Biden, when he banned public schools from implementing mask mandates as the state experienced a record surge in COVID-19 cases in July and August 2021."

That way it accurately reflects the summary of the 'Covid-19 pandemic' section here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_DeSantis#COVID-19_pandemic, balances both sides of the situation in a WP:NPOV manner and avoids the WP:ACTIVIST stench from the intro we have now. What do you think Firefangledfeathers, Nemov (talk), Aquillion (talk)?

The second part of this is if we include information on Covid, what else should be included? His military service is a must since thats got its own section and is a huge part of his life (he was in it about as long as he's been in politics) as well as where he attained some of his greatest accomplishments. Anything else? Davefelmer (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I oppose any and all content on public opinion polling in the lead of anyone's article (and I also generally oppose it in bodies). I disagree that that the lead should be framed as a dispute between DeSantis and Biden. The lead should simply state what actions DeSantis took and how this relates to his prominence. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

But why? That’s not a standard applied to other articles, as far as I’ve seen. Would you support going and removing “Often considered one of the most popular politicians in the United States” from the lead of Bernie Sanders’ article, for instance? Beyond that, I am interested in a solution here so for the purposes of this article, I’d reluctantly take your points and remove the polling information and reference to President Biden, which I just thought was added depth referenced in the body, and change it to simply:

"During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Florida, DeSantis was referred to as the most “politically ascendant" governor in the country as the state fared better than many others despite resisting restrictions such as face mask mandates, stay-at-home orders and vaccination requirements. However, he later earned criticism when he banned public schools from implementing mask mandates as the state experienced a record surge in COVID-19 cases in July and August 2021."

Again, not particularly happy with excluding polling data perfectly visible in other article leads etc but in the interest of compromise I’d settle for this. Agreed with this version? Davefelmer (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The COVID-19 pandemic and DeSantis's high-profile response to it (which RS have characterized as a key factor in bringing prominence to him) deserve mention in the lead due to the extensive coverage in the body and the extensive coverage of DeSantis. If the lead were to exclude COVID, the lead would provide a flawed summary of the article subject. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I see that Davefelmer has made another edit to this section while citing a compromise version. Where's the compromise here? I don't see a consensus among the editors for a specific change. The user should hold off on making future edits to this section until there's a consensus to do so. Nemov (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Who are you addressing here? I pinged you amongst others following your edit yesterday. Snooganssnoogans and I ended up having a discussion about a specific compromise version that addressed our individual concerns and indeed yours from your edit summary and we appeared to have tacit consensus between us. With no further objections over 12 hours later, I decided to make the change as there was no reason to keep a WP:NPOV violating WP:ACTIVIST style version up longer than need be.

Do you personally have any objections to the compromise version? I for instance am still not thrilled about excluding polling data from the lead as that’s unquestionably part of his story and nicely reflects his up and then down handling of Covid. Davefelmer (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

There's no consensus for change and you've made changes anyway. That's the objection. Until there's a clear consensus you should refrain from making further changes. Nemov (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, do you have any particular objections to the compromise text, which factors in not just the concerns expressed by myself and the editor I engaged with but ones you yourself expressed prior too? Or are you just saying that you don’t have an issue with the text itself but just want more people to formally support it on here first?

I should note another user pinged in the discussion yesterday has similarly chosen not to directly respond but has been editing away including on this very article without objecting to the new text in any way either. So perhaps a more tacit consensus is simply the style of this particular group of editors, which is fine per WP:SILENT and WP:BOLD to an extent. Davefelmer (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The current edit is fine and no one has put forth an improvement. Until there's support for change we should maintain the WP:STATUSQUO. Nemov (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

FL and Covid

I find it very perplexing that the LOW Covid numbers in FL now (December 2021) under the guidance of DeSantis are not listed/updated. Last item listed is the summer surge.

Could that be due to a liberal leaning stance by Wikipedia or are you going to update it now? Please do.

FL has the 8th lowest Covid death rate in the country. Please update. 69.115.6.218 (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

You can update it. Please add as you wish and provide reliable sources. Please do. Nemov (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

"Marijuana"

This should be changed to the more neutral term "Cannabis". Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Nobody objected to this, so I changed all references to "marijuana" to "cannabis", but I left the links to "Medical Marijuana" alone because that's how WP titles those particular articles. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2022

Ron DeSantis' grandfather's name was not "Salvadore." It was "Salvatore." Sgangemi (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. For anyone else looking into it, the cited source in the following sentence includes a primary document (wedding certificate) that uses 'Salvadore', but the source itself uses 'Salvatore' as do the vast majority of Google and Google News results. Firefangledfeathers 18:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Neutrality

My most recent contribution was undone (though not completely) by AlsoWaukai for not being neutral (or neutral enough?). To this I ask: how is the trend of cherry-picking low points in Florida's battle with Covid "neutral", but stating where its hospitalization rate currently stands in relation to Washington D.C. (it's half), as well places with mask-mandates currently in place a violation of NPOV? The original contrib as written doesn't even contain adjectives, if I recall correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkeeran (talk • contribs) 18:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I second this sentiment. @AlsoWukai, if you're gonna provide low points for Florida, you gotta allow high points as well for the sake of objectivity and making the section more objective. Simply stating "neutrality" in your revision doesn't sufficiently satisfy a valid reason for removing what Kkeeran contributed. 174.65.152.153 (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Same here. I don't see anything biased about the remark that was provided. I'll be reverting it back to the original statement as it appears to be factual and appropriately sourced. I'll also modify the statement to include points of criticism such as the ranking on hospitalization rates from the New York Times as it is inconsequential due to the frequent updates from that site. Vivaporius (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead to article lacking sources

After reviewing the lead to the article, I've noticed that there are no citations for any of the claims made in the opening. Do we have any plans to resolve this, as it appears to be drawing many individual claims of bias given the status of the individual involved and the nature of the claims being made against him. It would be helpful to get a handle on this so as not to attract the wrong kind of attention. Vivaporius (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Is there something specific in the lead that's not sourced later in the article? Nemov (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The lack of citations in the lead is the main issue, regardless of whether or not they can be found later in the article. This is out of line with what is expected with other biographical articles as this is the introduction into the character of the individual readers will first encounter and likely only read rather than dive into the rest of the content. There are no links to his election history in the lead, no links to citing his status of as a Trump ally in the lead, or of his criticism of Robert Muller in the lead. Given the nature of some complaints by individuals referencing the article, I believe it might be helpful of dissuade "corrective editing" by introducing some citations to sources verifying the points above, if only to maintain the neutrality of the article in question and avoid claims of editorialization. Vivaporius (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Vivaporius, per MOS:LEAD it is not required that the lede be cited, so long as those same claims are cited later in the article, which they are. Curbon7 (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for the clarification then. Vivaporius (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2022

change "Ron DeSantis 2020 (cropped).jpg" with "Gov Ron DeSantis Portrait.jpg" Ex-Facto (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: That was the former image. That is not his official portrait, just an extraction from a different photo (DS doesn't have an official gov photo it seems). Besides that, that image is really poor. Curbon7 (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

"Staunch zionist" - Shelden Adelson

Can we remove this? It is somewhat editorialized and rhetoric. 2600:8801:DF00:1C9:1155:D6E0:576F:ACA8 (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Curbon7 (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

"Don't say gay bill"

Someone edited this entry and botched the formatting. Can someone look at this? Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Is what you are on about fixed now? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine now - and you don't need to be sarcastic. My issue was not the content, it's that the edit put a whole bunch of white space in the middle of the article. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I was not being sarcastic and you were not clear what the issue was. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Misgendered

I removed this:The proclamation misgenders Thomas as male.

Likeanechointheforest says there's a guideline that justifies inclusion even though there's no coverage. Seems like this would have to receive some coverage for it to be included in the article. I could always be wrong though. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't insert our own commentary about primary sources; that would be original research, which Wikipedia has a policy against. Endwise (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Clarify involvement with SEAL Team One in Intro section

"Assigned to SEAL Team One," to a general audience, implies that DeSantis was a Navy SEAL (i.e. BUDS/SQT graduate, authorized to wear Special Warfare insignia). This is clarified further down, but misleading in the more prominent Intro. Serving in an advisory capacity, while important and helpful, does not make you a Navy SEAL. The average person might (and probably would) assume being "assigned to SEAL Team One" could only mean that he was a core member of that group. The section is locked but I think "served as an advisor to SEAL Team One" is a fairer statement that still reflects this prestigious contribution, but does not, at-first-glance, imply that DeSantis was a commando. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billcarton (talk • contribs) 13:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

That all makes sense to me, I completely agree. I've reworded it to make it clearer per your suggestion. Endwise (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Fact Check: False. There are documented convictions of voter fraud and illegal processes that were in place in the 2020 Presidential election.

After Donald Trump lost the 2020 election and refused to concede while making false claims of fraud, DeSantis and other Republicans proposed changes to restrict voting rights in Florida. DeSantis called for eliminating ballot drop boxes, as well as limiting voting by mail by requiring that voters re-register every year to vote by mail and requiring that signatures on mail-in ballots "must match the most recent signature on file" (rather than any of the voter's signatures in the Florida system).[302][303] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.163.222 (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I have changed it to "false claims of widespread voter fraud", which aligns with e.g. the intro to Donald Trump or Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election#Stop the Steal. With every election comes a small amount of fraud that people commit, of course. There just wasn't a widespread fraudulent conspiracy on a scale that altered the result of the election. Endwise (talk) 11:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2022

Gun law DeSantis opposes gun control. He received an A+ rating from the National Rifle Association.[252] He generally opposes firearm regulation, saying, "Very rarely do firearms restrictions affect criminals. They really only affect law-abiding citizens."[253]

After the 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, DeSantis expressed his support for hiring retired law enforcement officers and military veterans as armed guards for schools.[254] He disagrees with legislation Governor Rick Scott signed that banned bump stocks, added a mandatory three-day waiting period for gun long gun purchases, and raised the legal age for purchases from 18 to 21.[18] He has expressed support for measures to improve federal background checks for purchasing firearms and has said that there is a need to intervene with those who are exhibiting warning signs of committing violence instead of waiting until a crime has been committed.[254] 107.199.21.48 (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2022 (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. Curbon7 (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Why are we not talking about his pharma stock?

Ron Desantis owns large amounts of stock in COVID medication. Medication that's been proven to have zero effect on COVID however they're allowed to continue operating above the law because of his political reach. He's going after Disney but not big pharma??? DON'T BE DUMB REPUBLICUNTS. OPEN YOUR EYES, YOU'RE BEING PLAYED LIKE A FIDDLE. 2001:48F8:7028:934:3420:251D:5B0E:98AC (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Our goal is to try and proportionally represent the viewpoints that get published in reliable sources. From a quick google search, I've only found sources discussing a donor of his who owns Regeneron stock, not DeSantis himself. Endwise (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

NBER paper

I think I have adequately explained in my edit summary that this content is deeply flawed on multiple levels and must be excluded. Frankly, it's one of the weakest edits I've seen in quite some time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_DeSantis&diff=1082242254&oldid=1082241130

soibangla (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Nemov would you consider a self-revert here? This is newly-added dispute content, and I can't see a reason not to follow WP:BRD here (besides the extra Rs that have already happened). Unless I'm mistaken on the timeline, the WP:ONUS is on advocates for this content to build consensus. I also oppose adding it, based on the reliability of the sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I would have, but I was away too long. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed for the time being. The paper itself is not peer reviewed, and the WSJ article is opinion. Endwise (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a paper that's received notable coverage[1][2][3]. If there's something wrong with the paper then simply add the sources discussing it. As long as this article doesn't quote opinion from the editorial I have no issue with it being included. Edited to add: Looks like this was mentioned in USA Today as well.[4] Nemov (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't use OR as rationale for removal, as you asserted, but I'll use some now to demonstrate good reasons to be skeptical of this paper. There's some fish in a barrel here. The edit says:

Florida ranks 28th out of all 50 U.S. states in COVID-19 mortality, only slightly different than California

But this,[5] backed by this,[6]] indicates the CA mortality rate ranks 34% lower than FL's. And then there's "Pro-Trump counties now have far higher COVID death rates"[7]

This source[8] you provided says:

When it came to the three categories of mortality, economy, and schooling, New Jersey, New York, and California were among the worst across all three categories.

Let's look at the economy. During the period of the authors' study (Apr 2020 through Dec 2021), real GDP growth was higher in CA than in FL[9] and higher still for just the private sector.[10] Yes, the unemployment rate fell more in FL than in CA,[11] but it's almost always true[12] that FL's unemployment rate is lower than CA's, both at the cyclical peak and trough, so this is not a new phenomenon relating exclusively to the pandemic (people like Moore often fail to mention vital historical context like this).

Now let's examine the authors:

• Phil Kerpen, an economist with the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, a group devoted to promoting the supply-side economics touted by Ronald Reagan

• Casey Mulligan, an economics professor at the University of Chicago who also headed up the White House Council of Economic Advisers for a couple years during the Trump administration

• Stephen Moore with the right-wing think tank The Heritage Foundation[13]

Might it seem these fellas have a policy agenda they're pushing? Read Moore's BLP to discover his dubious track record.

The sources Nemov provided are all local, I don't see national coverage, with one source writing "The National Bureau of Economic Research released its final COVID-19 report" without mentioning the actual authors,[14] and another mentions NBER only as footnotes to charts, while also footnoting Committee to Unleash Prosperity, Moore's and Laffer's latest vehicle to promote tax cuts as the miracle cure for all that ails us. soibangla (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

For me, the biggest problem is how tangentially this is actually related to Ron DeSantis. It's being used here as a kind of indirect response to criticism DeSantis has faced for his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic as governor. But this is kind of WP:SYNTH: "he has been criticized, but here look at this paper which says Florida is doing okay, actually". If we have reliable sources connecting this paper to DeSantis I could understand the point, but the local newspapers linked above by Nemov don't.

I don't put much weight into trying to write our own counter-response to the paper as Wikipedia editors though, so I haven't read much of your response. Endwise (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. Might be worth keeping an eye on if this report gets more coverage over the next few days. Nemov (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

how tangentially this is actually related to Ron DeSantis Yeah, there's that, too. I hadn't gotten around to that part yet. soibangla (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I found this article from Media Matters highlighting several flaws with the study [15]. X-Editor (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The study isn't included in the current article for the reasons outlined above, but this source is WP:MREL when it comes to politics. Nemov (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I have no intention of adding the study back to the article. I also know that media matters isn't the best source, but it is the only one I can find that criticizes the study. X-Editor (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2022

In the "Political Positions" section of this article under "Contraceptives and abortion" the article states that:

"On April 14, 2022, DeSantis signed into law a bill that bans abortion after 15 months of pregnancy without exemptions for rape, human trafficking or incest."

However, the citation points to a CNN article titled "DeSantis signs Florida's 15-week abortion ban into law". I think this would indicate that the bill bans abortion after 15 weeks (not months) of pregnancy. Additionally, most human pregnancies do not take more than 9 months. Usersuponusers (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done 💜  melecie  talk - 04:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

idk what to name this

At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_DeSantis#Russia_investigation... I'd recommend someone split the Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman link cuz why not:

On October 10, 2019, a spokesman for DeSantis announced that he would be "returning a political contribution he received from two Soviet-born businessmen, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, through their company Global Energy Producers.

->

On October 10, 2019, a spokesman for DeSantis announced that he would be "returning a political contribution he received from two Soviet-born businessmen, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, through their company Global Energy Producers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9600:52C0:B85B:B81B:5BB1:71E2 (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Sister

I made this edit shortening the info about his deceased sister and her fiancé. Nether he nor she was a public figure, and detailing her education (and his work history) seems out of place here. It’s especially odd to include so many details without a cause of death. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

"Withholding murder arrest"

Here's a clumsy sentence: In 2020, Tony admitted to withholding a murder arrest from DeSantis during the vetting process. Huh? This probably made sense to whoever wrote it, since they already knew the story, but to the unenlightened, it starts out sounding like Tony delayed arresting some for murder. Then the "…from DeSantis…" part makes no sense. I read it three times and never figured it out. I'm changing it to this: In 2020, Tony admitted that, during the vetting process, he had failed to disclose a past arrest for murder when he was 14. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

After reading the reference more carefully, I discovered that the original sentence was wrong! Tony was not arrested for the shooting. I changed it to this: In 2020 Tony admitted that, during the vetting process, he had failed to disclose a fatal shooting he was 14, for which he was not arrested.

Cited source says, “Tony’s attorney argued he acted in self-defense. After successfully moving the case to juvenile court, Tony was found to be not at fault.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I’m going to revise this part of the BLP a bit more, using this source:

Swisher, Skyler and Mann, Anthony. “‘I didn’t even know the guy.’ Gov. Ron DeSantis distances himself from Broward Sheriff Gregory Tony, whom he appointed’”, South Florida Sun Sentinel (4 May 2020).

“ The Republican governor said the shooting never came up in a background check because it was deemed to be self-defense, and he’ll leave it to Broward voters to decide who should be sheriff…. DeSantis suggested it wouldn’t have changed his decision if he had known about the killing. He said he liked Tony because he came from a “real tough upbringing,” played football for Florida State University, and had been a “great law enforcement officer….It seems like he was in a very rough neighborhood, and he was trying to defend his family,” DeSantis said. ”

Gregory Tony was subsequently elected to the position to which DeSantis had appointed him. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Guidelines for opening sentence

Per MOS:FIRSTBIO:

“ The first sentence should usually state:

1. Name(s) and title(s), if any.
2. Dates of birth and death, if found in secondary sources (do not use primary sources for birth dates of living persons or other private details about them).
3. Context (location, nationality, etc.) for the activities that made the person notable.
4. One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms.
5. The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)
However, try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread relevant information over the lead section.

”

I would omit military service from opening sentence, because it’s mainly in the past, the details are given later in this BLP, we don’t even know his current rank in the Navy Reserve, etc. I’d also omit from the opening sentence that he’s an American and a politician, because that’s redundant given that we say he’s the Governor of Florida. As for being an attorney, that’s not very notable, but if it has to go into the opening paragraph it still doesn’t need to go in the opening sentence. The opening sentence should be short and sweet. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Concur with the military service part; possible agreeance with the attorney part; hard oppose with the American and politician part, as it is generally a Wiki-wide consensus to include that, as those are standard encyclopedic qualifiers. Curbon7 (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

New proposal regarding Ingraham interview

After discussing this matter at BLPN, they say neither proposed version is easy to understand, and that we should make this matter coherent. Then, if there is still an NPOV dispute, they suggest an RFC. So, I would revise the material as follows (coherence requires greater length):

“ During an interview on the The Laura Ingraham Show on November 5, 2020 DeSantis commented about alleged voter fraud in the 2020 United States presidential election; he said that Republican-controlled state legislatures should step in to influence the process by providing “remedies” if there are violations of election laws, “to make sure we have a fair count“. That statement by DeSantis on Ingraham’s show was interpreted by reporters such as Skyler Swisher of the South Florida Sun Sentinel as an effort to “override the popular vote”. DeSantis then clarified that he only meant state legislators should act pursuant to the Constitution “in the event of a flagrant violation of law.” In the first week of December, he encouraged Trump to "fight on” but conceded that time was running out. ”

Here’s the wikitext including the footnotes:

During an interview on the [[The Laura Ingraham Show]] on November 5, 2020 DeSantis [[Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud|commented about alleged voter fraud]] in the [[2020 United States presidential election]]; he said that Republican-controlled state legislatures should step in to influence the process by providing “remedies” if there are violations of election laws, “to make sure we have a fair count“.<ref>Anderson, Zac. “[https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/politics/2020/11/06/gov-ron-desantis-said-thursday-trump-should-fight-on-exhaust-all-options/6190127002/ Florida Republicans rally around Trump as he claims voter fraud]”, Sarasota Herald-Tribune (6 Nov. 2020).</ref><ref>”[https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/ingraham-on-election-chaos-president-trump-saw-this-coming.amp Ingraham on election chaos: President Trump 'saw this coming'], [[Fox News]] (transcript of 5 Nov 2020 broadcast).</ref> That statement by DeSantis on Ingraham’s show was interpreted by reporters such as Skyler Swisher of the [[South Florida Sun Sentinel]] as an effort to “override the popular vote”.<ref>Swisher, Skyler. [https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/elections/fl-ne-florida-gop-reaction-20201106-pjqk73ln3jcojggkp2rhezz7ay-story.html “DeSantis floats idea to bypass swing-state voters as Florida GOP backs Trump’s fight to keep the White House”], [[South Florida Sun Sentinel]] (6 Nov 2020).</ref>. DeSantis then clarified that he only meant state legislators should act pursuant to the Constitution “in the event of a flagrant violation of law.”<ref>Donovan, Evan. “[https://www.wfla.com/election/elections-national/desantis-clarifies-comment-on-trump-elector-remedies-by-republican-state-legislatures/amp/ DeSantis clarifies comment on Trump elector ‘remedies’ by Republican state legislatures]”, WFLA-TV (20 Nov 2020).</ref><ref>Moline, Michael. “[https://floridaphoenix.com/2021/01/12/hate-groups-have-been-proliferating-in-fl-during-trump-administration-desantis-says-fl-will-be-prepared/ Hate groups have been proliferating in FL during Trump administration; DeSantis says FL will be prepared]”, [[States Newsroom|Florida Phoenix]] (12 Jan 2021).</ref> In the first week of December, he encouraged Trump to "fight on” but conceded that time was running out.<ref>Skoneki, Mark. “[https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-ne-desantis-trump-fight-on-speech-20201204-qbk4vlygxndlxnns3zcqhasxia-story.html DeSantis urges Trump to ‘fight on’ but concedes time is running out: report]”, Orlando Sentinel (4 Dec 2020).</ref><ref>Fineout, Gary. “[https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2020/12/03/desantis-tells-trump-to-fight-on-takes-aim-at-science-and-has-beef-with-john-roberts-1341031 DeSantis tells Trump to 'fight on,' takes aim at science and has beef with John Roberts]”, Politico (3 Dec 2020).</ref>

Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

That has the same problems and it's not more intelligible. Please take account of the sourcing and other issues raised on this page and at BLPN and try to ensure they are resolved in any proposed article text. Also, it's not really possible to separate NPOV and WEIGHT issues from the manner in which you present sourced text. Please reflect on this prior to your next revision or proposal if you wish to pursue this matter. SPECIFICO talk 13:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that the current text in this BLP follows the cited sources or is neutral. Both versions I’ve presented here do so, with the latter being more understandable for people who aren’t familiar with all of this. Let’s see if User:Marquardtika and User:Nemov would like to comment. Then we’ll do an RFC. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I did not say anything about the existing text. Please don't assert straw-person or off-topic arguments. SPECIFICO talk 14:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the existing text with this edit summary: “Removing text in this BLP that doesn’t follow the cited sources and isn’t neutral. Improved versions are under discussion at talk page.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

• Comment This entire conversation is overkill to me. The previous discussion was fine. I agree with this user's assessment[16] that this entire article is borderline incoherent. It covers too many topics. Fixing this article would require battling editors from both sides who are obsessed with politics. In a narrower scope your initial edit proposal was fine. I'm not sure this is even important enough to warrant a mention in this article. Politicians are in the news for what they say every single day. It's not our duty to document it all on Wikipedia. Nemov (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree it is overkill. The way Wikipedia is set up, it’s easy for an editor to filibuster, and the only way to deal with it is to try and respond, get more input from others, et cetera. So it may not be possible to improve this BLP much right now, but it seems worth a try. Thanks for engaging with it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• First, the word "clarified" does not appear in the best sources on this matter. It is in one headline, which we don't use for article text verification. Second, the Politico coverage of DeSantis' stand on Trump's fraud thing is a better source than either of these two. It documents that he advocated reversing the "result of the election." The proposed text has many problems, but it's a complete misrepresentation of DeSantis' stated position. Now that this has been exposed, I am not surprised to see a pivot to omitting the content, since the whitewash version was not endorsed at BLPN. SPECIFICO talk 15:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion at BLPN has not resulted in any comments about the proposed long version, calling it whitewashed is erroneous given that it includes the assertion that Desantis was trying to overturn the popular vote. If you want to refer to a particular source please link to it; there’s already a Politico article in the proposed long version. Keep in mind that the farther we get from recentism and breaking news the better. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

That is unresponsive. You attribute DeSantis' advocacy of overturning the election to a non-notable reporter, when Politico has verified those are DeSantisx own words. This is not complicated. SPECIFICO talk 16:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

As to “clarification” that word obviously accurately describes what DeSantis issued, which is why it was in the headline of one of our reliable sources. Another of our reliable sources said: “A press aide later clarified to News Channel 8 in Tampa….” So you’re clearly mistaken about that. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

We never use headlines for verification -- in any news media. Channel 8 Tampa is exactly the kind of weak source that would need corroboration. That came up at BLPN, so it's not just one gal's opinion here. SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The quote in my last comment was not from a headline. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

We all know that. It was from a weak source, as stated here and at BLPN. But you also repeated your insistence on the headlne. Please don't keep repeating. If you think you can draft valid article content based on the feedback you've gotten, I'll review it. But like others, I will not be engaging in further circular discussion. SPECIFICO talk 17:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The source has both strengths and weaknesses. The strengths include that it’s months removed from breaking news. Also, the reputable journalist who wrote it, Michael Moline, is a former deputy managing editor of the National Law Journal with decades of experience reporting on the legal system, which is significant because DeSantis explicitly referenced the law and the legal system. The main weakness is that this incident was not the primary focus of the article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

DeSantis on Trump election dispute

I’d like to revise this paragraph:

“ DeSantis openly supported Trump's legal disputes of the 2020 United States presidential election, suggesting state legislatures of states won by Joe Biden could revolt and select slates of presidential electors that would instead vote for Trump.[1] He also urged Trump to "fight on."[2]

[1] Donovan, Evan. “DeSantis clarifies comment on Trump elector ‘remedies’ by Republican state legislatures”, WFLA-TV (20 Nov 2020).
[2] Skoneki, Mark. “DeSantis urges Trump to ‘fight on’ but concedes time is running out: report”, Orlando Sentinel (4 Dec 2020).

”

I don’t think our text follows the cited sources very well, so I’d suggest something like this:

“ In November 2020, DeSantis commented about Trump's legal disputes involving the 2020 United States presidential election, suggesting that a state legislature has constitutional power to remedy a flagrant violation of law, in order to “make sure we have a fair count.”[1] In the first week of December, he encouraged Trump to "fight on” but conceded that time was running out.[2]

[1] Donovan, Evan. “DeSantis clarifies comment on Trump elector ‘remedies’ by Republican state legislatures”, WFLA-TV (20 Nov 2020).
[2] Skoneki, Mark. “DeSantis urges Trump to ‘fight on’ but concedes time is running out: report”, Orlando Sentinel (4 Dec 2020).

”

Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose change The current text reflects DeSantis' position at the time. SPECIFICO talk 21:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Would you say that if you had no political opinion about DeSantis? Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I said nothing about DeSantis. SPECIFICO talk 22:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

You don’t have to say anything about him to have an opinion. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The current text does not take into account the clarification that DeSantis made on 20 November 2020. Besides WFLA-TV, the only other reliable source I found that discussed his clarification was the Florida Phoenix, which reported about “his apparent call following the elections upon voters in GOP-controlled states to urge their legislators to adjust the vote counts.” Adjusting the vote counts in order to remedy purported voting irregularities is different from appointing a different slate of electors, and the text I’m proposing reflects DeSantis’s clarification as reported by these two reliable sources. Neither of those reliable sources was used when the present text in this Wikipedia article was written by an editor who is now retired. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support change The modification is an improvement. It's neutral. "Openly supported" is a bit of hyperbole given the context of the sources. Nemov (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support change it adheres better to the sourcing. Marquardtika (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a 3-1 consensus, but I’ll wait another day before implementing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Why don't you present some first-rate source references regarding DeSantis' statements. He is widely followed by the American national press. Moreover, any reference that's headlined "clarified" is a red flag on its face. SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see what’s wrong with clarity. He’s the governor of a particular state, so one would expect the press in that state to have particular expertise and coverage about him. My advice: save your ammo for when I really screw up. 😊 Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

That is unresponsive, so I conclude you have no strong source unless you show otherwise. SPECIFICO talk 01:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The WFLA-TV source and the Florida Phoenix source are the best possible sources because they are the only two sources (AFAIK) that include coverage of not just the Ingraham interview but also the subsequent statement that DeSantis issued on 20 Nov 2020 about this subject. The Orlando Sentinal source is better than the source it replaced, because the latter was behind a paywall. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Unresponsive. SPECIFICO talk 02:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps not responsive in the way you would prefer. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Here’s background info about the reporter who wrote the WFLA-TV report. And here’s background info about the reporter who wrote the Florida Phoenix report. And here’s the footnote that I will add immediately after the WFLA-TV footnote: Moline, Michael. “Hate groups have been proliferating in FL during Trump administration; DeSantis says FL will be prepared”, Florida Phoenix (12 Jan 2021). Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused at what is at issue here. Is there an issue with local reporting? As long as those local reports are reliable there's no reason not to use them. Nemov (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree the sources here are okay. Per WP:RSBREAKING, “Claims sourced to initial news reports should be immediately replaced with better-researched ones as soon as they are published….” In this instance, that’s what happened. We should favor reliable reporting when it has been able to “collect more information.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

DeSantis or any politician's "walking back" a statement by disingenuously claiming to "clarify" by changing and confusing its meaning -- that's not an error in the initial news source. It's just fodder for supporters to deny the statement -- "joking" "sarcastic" "off the top of his head" "misunderstood" "clarify" etc. etc. Experienced WP editors are familiar with this. SPECIFICO talk 14:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

All of the events in question happened in November 2020. If this were a situation where, for example, DeSantis said one thing in November 2020 and then found it convenient to walk it back after January 6, 2021 the reliable sources would have addressed that timing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

That is not responsive. SPECIFICO talk 15:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course it’s responsive. You discussed “walking back” a statement, and I replied about “walking back” a statement. Please stop saying that any comment you don’t like is unresponsive. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Politicians making the sort of claims I listed above generally do so after immediate negative reaction. That is what they do when they learn from public reaction that they regret having said this or that. So your responses including the one above are not responsive to the central issue. SPECIFICO talk 16:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Every case is different. In this particular instance, following the so-called "clarification" on November 20, reliable sources had an opportunity to assess whether DeSantis was clarifying, backtracking, elaborating, or what have you. And in this particular instance, the WFLA reliable source said that legislative appointment of electors was "a method seemingly suggested by Gov. Ron DeSantis, in an appearance on Fox News two days after Election Day" (emphasis added). As you can see, in view of the DeSantis statement, this reliable source did not insist that DeSantis was changing course and did not insist that he had said something different previously, but rather used the word "seemingly." Our Florida Phoenix reliable source did substantially the same thing, writing: "Neither did he mention his apparent call following the elections upon voters in GOP-controlled states to urge their legislators to adjust the vote counts" (emphasis added). The word "apparent" (like the word "seemingly") acknowledges that, in view of the November 20 clarifying statement, it was no longer clear that DeSantis had actually advocated for any legislature to directly appoint electors. What DeSantis originally said and later clarified was that a state legislature could alter the vote count by tossing out votes that flagrantly violated the law, but that's quite different from tossing out all the votes of every citizen and simply appointing electors based on legislative preference. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

We're all aware of that. But you are going in circles. You need to find better sourcing to make a convincing case for this. SPECIFICO talk 19:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this is going in circles and it's time to WP:DTP. Leave it open for other editors to discuss. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I've got nothing more to add to the discussion but this revision[17] was unnecessary given the current status of the discussion. I would encourage the users to move forward in good faith. Nemov (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support change: The proposed change is neutrally-worded and more reflective of the sources. Also, despite not being significantly longer, it's more informative as to what, exactly, DeSantis actually said. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion

I started a discussion at the BLPN Noticeboard. Hopefully that will get some more eyes on this situation. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Anti-rioting legislation

There’s a paragraph in this article that starts “In January 2021, legislation drafted by DeSantis was introduced….” The legislation got revised a lot, got passed, and was signed in April 2021. Then part of it was put on ice by the federal courts. So our existing paragraph is pretty much obsolete, and there’s no need to discuss one of several related bills instead of discussing the actual law that got passed and signed. So, when I get a chance, I’ll revise this BLP accordingly. Here are a few sources:

• Cardona, Alexi. “We Read DeSantis' ‘Anti-Riot’ Bill So You Don't Have to — Here's What It Says”, Miami New Times (20 Apr 2021).

• Farrington, Brendan. “DeSantis signs Florida’s anti-riot bill, cites Chauvin trial”, Associated Press (19 Apr 2021).

• Ceballos, Ana. ”Federal judge blocks key portion of anti-riot law, targets DeSantis and three sheriffs”, Miami Herald (10 Sep 2021).

Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with updating it. Please go ahead, per WP:BOLD.

Actually, there's other content in the "Tenure" section that needs updating. For example, the Florida State Guard information is outdated -- the legislature devoted $10 million to it, and it has already been formally established (1,2). Also, some of the Big Tech and election-law content is outdated, and probably others. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Mañana. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Koch approved and funded. No mention of donors in the bio

There are numerous reliable sources like this one, plus dozens of local Florida sources that discuss the role of Koch donor money, plus the role of his press secretary, Christina Pushaw, who used to work for Stand Together, a Koch-funded think tank. Further, according to a USA Today-affiliated news outlet, DeSantis has received campaign donations from 42 billionaires. Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Vriditas. Do any of these reliable sources say whether it’s unusual for politicians to get some of their funding from billionaires? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Red Herring. WEIGHT is established by the numerous articles about this. SPECIFICO talk 02:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Am I allowed to be curious? Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• I’ve added a section about this. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Deleted material

All of this was inserted yesterday and deleted today:

“ Finances
As of January 2021, DeSantis’s personal net worth was about $389,000. His campaign accounts have benefited from many small donations of under $25 as well as donations from out of state and from wealthy donors.

DeSantis’s campaign accounts are subject to contribution limits, but his associated political action committee (PAC) can receive unlimited donations. The top donor to the Friends of DeSantis PAC has been the Citadel LLC hedge fund founder Kenneth C. Griffin, who gave $5 million in April 2021 after having given $5.75 million in 2018. Griffin, who is the second largest donor to the 2022 elections nationwide according to the Center for Media and Democracy, is among about 42 billionaires who have donated to DeSantis.

Griffin’s political contributions raised some eyebrows when it was reported that his company Citadel had invested $16 million (a part of Citadel’s assets of $39 billion) in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals which provided monoclonal antibodies touted by DeSantis for treatment of Covid 19. A DeSantis spokesperson said that any suggestion of corruption over this small connection to Griffin via Regeneron was illogical. The spokesperson has also said that the Governor’s position in favor of revoking The Walt Disney Company’s special tax status “still stands” after Griffin criticized DeSantis about it.

”

References

I think it was a helpful addition. Anyone else want to comment about it? Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

No opinion on the content as a whole, but the third paragraph is definitely not in WP:WIKIVOICE. Curbon7 (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)m

Yes, it would probably be appropriate to replace the word “eyebrows” with “questions”. Anything else, User:Curbon7? I don’t think being insufficiently derogatory is a good reason to delete stuff at Wikipedia. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

RE: Dogwhistle

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.

---

The explanation for reverting my edit doesn't make sense. Here are the two versions:

1

DeSantis came under scrutiny after he referred to Gillum's positions saying, "The last thing we need to do is to monkey this up by trying to embrace a socialist agenda with huge tax increases and bankrupting the state." He was accused by then-chair of the Florida Democratic Party Terrie Rizzo of using the verb "monkey" as a racist dog whistle. Gillum, his African-American opponent, also alleged that it was racist. The incident received widespread media coverage; DeSantis denied that his comment was meant to be racially charged.

2

DeSantis was widely criticized for his use of racially-charged dogwhistle references to Gillum during the campaign. He came under scrutiny after he referred to Gillum's positions saying, "The last thing we need to do is to monkey this up by trying to embrace a socialist agenda with huge tax increases and bankrupting the state." He was accused by then-chair of the Florida Democratic Party Terrie Rizzo of using the verb "monkey" as a racist dog whistle. Gillum, his African-American opponent, also alleged that it was racist. The incident received widespread media coverage; DeSantis denied that his comment was meant to be racially charged.

SPECIFICO justifies the inclusion based on context and the reporting of repeated dogwhistle language in his campaign appears in the cited sources and needs contextualize the article content, which is not about a one-time gaffe. I'm not sure how that included text does any of those things. The first version says the converge was widespread. The first version mentions dogwhistle. There's no mention of "one-time gaffe" in either version. This is an odd thing to be reverting, but since you did is there support for keeping version 2? Nemov (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nemov: I disagree. The former text says only that DeSantis was "scrutinized" (in weasel passive voice} after a single statement. But the dogwhistle "monkey" and "articulate" and other racist tropes DeSantis used to describe Gillum are widely reported in RS. If anything should be removed it's the "came under scrutiny when" bit, which refers only to a single incident. I added a few sources but there are dozens more that cite the broader issue of what were widely described as DeSantis' racist appeals in the campaign.

Having read only the greentext version without having looked at your explanation before deciding which version is better, I concur that version number 1 is the preferred version. It is a more specific and accurate representation of the source that are provided for that particular incident. If it can be expanded to include more examples of DS using dogwhistles, than that absolutely should be covered, but with the current sourcing and only 1 example, version 2 is not warranted. Curbon7 (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Curbon7: Please see my reply to Nemov above. Have you surveyed the RS discussion of the racist memes invoked by DeSantis in his campaign? Please read the sources, including the ones I added but also as many others as you wish. SPECIFICO talk 17:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

For what I'm saying, what sources are extant but aren't currently cited is irrelevant. Those instances should absolutely be cited; however, we cannot accept version 2 as is with just the one example from the debate, as version 2 is expansive and implies more than just the 1 incident. If there are more citations, than we should rewrite that entire paragraph to be more inclusive of all of the alleged racist stuff that went on during the campaign. Curbon7 (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I provided citations that Verify the text I added. Moreover, yes, we do always need to look at as many sources as possible to determine significance for article inclusion even though we do not cite all of the relevant sources as article references. SPECIFICO talk 18:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I provided citations that Verify the text I added -- You absolutely did not, that is incorrect. Endwise (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• @SPECIFICO: We cannot say that he used a racist dogwhistle in Wikipedia's voice, as reliable sources don't (including the ones already in the article and the ones you added). The one already in the article quotes an opinion from Terrie Rizzo. Roll Call also cites this as an opinion of Rizzo's. As did NYT. This WaPo article is an op-ed. The Guardian also quotes it as an opinion of Rizzo's. I highly doubt whatever this is is a reliable source, but it's an op-ed either way.

Can we try and stick to what sources actually say, please? Endwise (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

As I've said above (I hope you've read the thread) I added several references, each of which supports the content I added -- including DOGWHISTLES. Your repetition of this revert is unwarranted and apparently based on an oversight, misunderstanding, or failure to read the cited sources. Please base your arguments on sources and policy that I and other editors can respond to in a substantive manner. SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I added several references, each of which supports the content I added You've asserted that, and my comment above explains why it's incorrect. Your addition stated in Wikipedia's voice that DeSantis used a racially-charged dogwhistle. Reliable sources present that as an opinion of critics of his, rather than stating it as fact in their own voice. For instance, NBC News said Terrie Rizzo, chairwoman of the Florida Democratic Party, said, "It's disgusting that Ron DeSantis is launching his general election campaign with racist dog whistles."

Do you really need me to cite a policy which explains that articles need to actually reflect what reliable sources say? Will WP:NPOV or WP:OR suffice? Endwise (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Version 1 seems most encyclopedic to me, although we could properly remove “came under scrutiny after he”, which is obvious from the rest of the paragraph. I am also concerned about this edit by SPECIFICO: “DeSantis denied that his comment was meant to be racially charged, adding that people ‘should be judged based on their ability and character regardless of race’”. This is an extremely important political position that was widely quoted at the time. We provide lots of political positions in this BLP, but we should omit that he opposes racial discrimination? Kept in mind too that this is an extremely controversial position, as many politicians support quotas, affirmative action, et cetera. And a lot of nutcases support discrimination against African-Americans. SPECIFICO’s edit summary says, “We note his denial, let's not make it even less credible by quoting the language that was widely rejected and ignored by RS coverage, except to quote it as a deflection without credibility”. Denying that he made a racist remark is not a political position, and is far different from affirmatively saying that he rejects racial discrimination. I suppose it may be necessary to list the RS’s that quoted this position of DeSantis. Will do so in a few minutes. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  It is odd to me that the quote was removed and then this extra bit of unnecessary wording was added. Nemov (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Unless anyone has anything else to add we can close this discussion out. Seems we've reached a resolution. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'll have a look and see whether I think it's been scrambled up. SPECIFICO talk 18:50, 7 July 2022 (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.

His position on racial discrimination

Here is some of the national coverage of his statement against racial discrimination:

• Martel, Kate. "The Hill’s 12:30 Report — Trump steps up attack on CNN", The Hill (30 Aug 2018).

• Connolly, Griffin. "Florida's Ron DeSantis Doubles Down on 'Monkey This Up' Comment", Roll Call (30 Aug 2018).

• "CNN Newsroom With John Berman and Poppy Harlow", CNN (30 Aug 2018).

• Schwartz, Ian. “DeSantis: 'Monkey This Up' Comment About Black Challenger ‘Has Zero To Do With Race’”, Real Clear Politics (29 Aug 2018).

This BLP reports his political positions about Cannabis, Contraceptives and abortion, Economy, Education, Environment, Foreign relations, Gun law, Health care, Immigration, LGBT rights, Russia, Technology, Veterans, Voting rights, and Law enforcement. Why not racial discrimination? Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

For the reasons explained above, I intend to reinsert this quote with these four sources in respective footnotes, absent objection here at this talk page. It’s a straight-up quotation, no one disputes he said it, or that it was quoted widely by reliable secondary sources, and no one disputes that it is a statement of his political position on racial discrimination. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

You should probably steer clear of RealClearPolitics, per WP:RSP. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Done. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It's still no good.

1. It reads as if the objections were partisan but, in references that have been removed, it's documented that there was widespread condemnation of DeSantis from non-partisan media and other observers.
2. DeSantis disingenuous and widely rejected denial should not be presented with false balance. As editors we know very well that such prevarications are political tactics that have no bearing on the substance if the issue. There was a long thread about this with extensive argument by Anythingyouwant, and her views were not endorsed there -- as she will testify.

So no, it's still no good. Maybe an RfC is the next step if the small group of editors here are going to insist on this bad content. SPECIFICO talk 18:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I’m a male (he/him). The sentence in question is: “More generally, he added that his position on racial discrimination is that people ‘should be judged based on their ability and character regardless of race’.[45][48][49]” I think we can describe his view on racial discrimination without false balance. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Ho/hum. I could have sworn that before your topic bans you were a she/her. Hope you are not offended. SPECIFICO talk 19:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The quote is nonsense. RS say he used the dogwhistle to have certain voters judge DeSantis Gillum on the basis of his race and their stereotypes of Black people. Next campaign, we may see DeSantis' defenders wsaying he was prescient in light of Gillum's subsequent course. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO, I think you meant "judge Gillum" rather than DeSantis. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:False balance, “While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.” The present situation is nothing like that. Multiple reliable secondary sources confirm this statement about racial discrimination. No reliable secondary sources say he was lying or inaccurate. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

You already tried to argue that on the Noticeboard, and did not gain consensus. In fact it was explained to you over and over how and why that is nonsense. And bring in straw arguments is not going to change that (...lying...}. You know perfectly well nobody can state as fact that he or anyone else is lying. SPECIFICO talk 20:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

What Noticeboard? Please provide a link. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Noticeboard? What noticebord? I don't remember any noticeboard. SPECIFICO talk 20:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

That had nothing to do with DeSantis’s position on racial discrimination (the BLPN discussion was about his stance on the power of state legislatures to regulate presidential elections). Moreover, you could claim that any position statement is a denial that he has a different position. Saying that people “should be judged based on their ability and character regardless of race” is a statement in opposition to racial discrimination. Even if it were a denial of some sort, WP:MANDY is not a policy or guideline and therefore has no weight here. Bottom line: I am not citing the BLP policy on denials as a reason to include this material. It is a very noteworthy position statement, just like the other position statements in this BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, You can't just assume someone remembers a thread from three weeks ago by just the word "noticeboard", and then get mad when they don't remember. We have a lot of Noticeboards. Curbon7 (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is angry, Curbon7. Yes we do expect editors to abide by the outcome when their own arguments, presented repeatedly and at length, are not endorsed by other editors on the BLP Noticeboard. Imagine what the site and the editing process would be like if that were not the case. SPECIFICO talk 23:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Relevance to the present content discussion escapes me though. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• In order to make this less confusing, I've broken this out as a separate section since it's separate topic from the one I raised about SPECIFICO's revert.Nemov (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Could someone alphabetize the political positions section?

It would be much appreciated. Thanks. You da real mvp. CAPTAIN KOOKY (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see why not. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Last paragraph of lead

It would be better if the last paragraph of the lead were more general, instead of focusing on two particular issues (covid and how to teach third graders). I don’t think the coverage of those two issues is done well in the lead (e.g. we say the latter legislation was “controversial” despite contrary advice at WP:Contentious which discourages such labels). But more importantly, the last paragraph of a BLP lead should not be so narrow. I suggest something like this instead:

“ DeSantis is not a charismatic speaker and is often polarizing, but he espouses his libertarian vision of government in clear and complete sentences. His work ethic and familiarity with policy have proved sufficient to remake the political landscape in Florida, with registered Republicans exceeding registered Democrats in Florida for the first time as of 2021. DeSantis is up for reelection as Governor in 2022, and is polling well for president in 2024. ”

Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

That's much worse. In addition to "polarizing" having the same flaws to which you refer above, it also slips in a nonsense bit about his "work ethic" while ignoring his homo/trans-phobic and covid-negligent health policies. SPECIFICO talk 11:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think your position about negligence indicates NPOV on your part. Perhaps you should edit articles on other subjects. On the other hand, if you can be successful in accomplishing your goals, doing so is understandable. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

No personal remarks on the article talk page. I take the above as confirmation that you have no substantive defence of the POV text I removed. SPECIFICO talk 13:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• What are the sources in the article that we're using for this? That's a lot of highly-specific statements and claims, set in a fairly conversational tone; we'd need a large number of high-quality sources to say some of these things. The first sentence is really weird from a tone perspective (not a charismatic speaker? Clear and complete sentences?), while the bit about his work ethic would require extremely strong neutral RSes to establish that this is something uncontroversially and near-universally accepted among them, which I don't think is the case. And attributing the political shifts in Florida to him personally would likewise require extremely high-quality sourcing, preferably from sources with relevant expertise. Even "polling well for president" takes a weirdly informal tone. Also, we definitely couldn't replace coverage of his COVID response or the so-called "Don't Say Gay" bill with that - those are the two aspects of his tenure that have received the most national coverage. (Certainly more than whether he is a charismatic speaker, his "clear and complete sentences" (?!), or his "work ethic." The current last paragraph of the lead is more neutral because it neutrally summarizes the aspects of his tenure that have received the most coverage in reliable sources according to what those sources say, while this proposal... if I understand right, it seems like you're just dropping Dexter Filkins' opinion from [18] this piece in without attribution? That's clearly giving that piece undue weight. Honestly we're probably giving it too much weight even in the body (pulling a few quotes out of a magazine profile and then citing them as the sole opinion at the top of the Governor of Florida section is already giving too much weight to a single source.) But devoting an entire paragraph to this one magazine profile, in the lead, unattributed, and replacing extensively-sourced summaries of DeSantis' tenure from a much wider range of sources? No. --Aquillion (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
• I didn't realize the paragraph devoted to Filkins was a recent addition; I've removed it for now. The lead paragraph of a section should summarize the section, not summarize a single profile in a magazine. I think there might be some proper use for that profile but by my reading New Yorker profiles are largely opinion; if we we want to focus on what Filkins' says about DeSantis, we'd need either some additional sources showing that this is more than just one person's opinion, or a larger section for reception and perspectives on DeSantis so we're not giving Filkins undue weight. Dropping Filkins at the top of the section alone and talking about how DeSantis is "not a charismatic speaker" but has a strong "work ethic" with only one cite as a source seems inappropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy, guideline, or custom that the first paragraph of a section should summarize the rest of the section. It seems just as appropriate for the first paragraph to make general observations, and then dive into more specific incidents, and specific policies, in the ensuing paragraphs. Jumping right into minutae seems like bad writing to me. Regarding this link that you give to the New Yorker's website, I don't see that uses the word "opinion", but it would probably be best to provide inline attribution. According to the piece you've linked, each profile is a “journalistic biographical sketch” that provides “a unique mix of intimacy and irony. They have a literary commitment to tiny details, combined with a comedic eye for social types. And each Profile is the record of a relationship. Profiles aren’t interviews; instead, they’re a distillation of weeks, months, even years of observation and conversation.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Notice that the political positions section currently has an introductory sentence that does not summarize what follows in that section, but rather gives some general background: “DeSantis is considered a Trumpist and Tea Party conservative”. It’s just a general statement before getting into specifics. Putting aside whether that introductory sentence is perfect or not, having no introductory sentence in many of our long sections is bad writing. See, for example, discussion in Wikipedia’s featured article process: “There needs to be an introductory sentence in the Discovery section….” [19]. An introductory sentence can be written in various different ways, it does not always have to summarize what follows. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Also, regarding controversial, this is based on a common misunderstanding of WP:WTW. Such labels are supposed to be used if they are widely used in sources to describe the subject, as is the case here. They're only discouraged when there is inadequate sourcing. --Aquillion (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Such labels contribute virtually nothing to a reader's understanding because they are too vague and subjective. WP:CONTENTIOUS is an official Wikipedia guideline. It says, “Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2022

Change "After Donald Trump lost the 2020 election and refused to concede while making false claims of widespread voter fraud" to "After Donald Trump lost the 2020 election and refused to concede while making claims of widespread voter fraud" 67.86.37.28 (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: False is a pretty important word in that context. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Accuracy and bias note

Wjolivarez's recent addition to the section regarding DeSantis's role in the passage of HB 1557 reflects political bias and is grammatically repetitive. Unable to revert due to protected status of page. 124467h (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, that edit has been reverted.[20] Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)