Jump to content

Talk:Ron DeSantis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.189.186.62 (talk) at 21:55, 24 August 2022 (→‎Thankyou I want to be part your campaign: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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:


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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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 [1] 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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….” [2]. 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

For what it’s worth, that edit has been reverted.[3] Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty contest

  • Picture A
    Picture A
  • Picture B
    Picture B
  • Picture C
    Picture C
  • B, blue
    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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Ok I browsed [4] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Anythingyouwant: Is there a specific color you would like the background? – Pbrks (t • c) 17:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not very good when it comes to colors. How about his eye color? Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I made the background blue. Let me know if that works for you. – Pbrks (t • c) 20:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With the change I'd go with Blue. Nemov (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
”B, Blue” looks best, thanks to User:Pbrks for that. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Thankyou I want to be part your campaign

Thankyou Plse contact me 68.189.186.62 (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ron_DeSantis&oldid=1106491013"