This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ron DeSantis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I thought it would be best to start a discussion before adding this. DeSantis made a public comment about his opponent that is not sitting well with a lot of people. Here's what CNN wrote:
" Calling him "an articulate spokesman" for the far left, DeSantis said during an interview on Fox News when asked about his opponent Gillum, "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." " — 'CNN'
I'm not sure if this was a lapsus linguae or a just unfortunate wording. Either way, we may need to include something about it in this article.
Other sources: [1][2][3] - MrX 🖋 17:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Mr -- Now that DeSantis has won the GOP primary and is running for governor of Florida, this comment is going to come up again and again and again. We should be sure to address allegations of racial bias, which are being widely covered in the news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretlyironic (talk • contribs) 17:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. There is nothing inherently racial about the comment. I monkey things up at work when making mistakes. Its a common expression and has nothing to do with race. This is only making a splash as an attempt to take down the candidate.ChickDaniels (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Nothing racist about it? You living on the same planet as me? AHC300 (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
This is leftist liberal bullshit where anything any republican says is racist just to be clear im talking about the media in reporting this not any user עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
"leftist liberal bullshit" get the fuck out of here you klansman AHC300 (talk) 11:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
hey MrX doesnt this violate [WP:NPA] עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Why are you pinging me about this? Stop trolling.- MrX 🖋 19:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
i thought you would want to try to sanction an editor who actuality violates wiki policies instead of threatening me for violating nothing עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, there is circulating now a quote from 2008 where Obama used the term: Both Parties ‘Have Monkeyed Around With Elections.’ And notice both Obama and DeSantis used the term as a verb, not a noun. This is nothing more than a hit-job on DeSantis in an attempt to derail his campaign, and such a non-issue should never appear in wiki.ChickDaniels (talk) 12:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I didn't know Obama was white. Or the fact DeSantis is one of Trump's strongest allies who is a hardcore white nationalist, along with the GOP pushing the Southern Stragety since the 1960s. Guess you should look up Le Atwater and get back to me. AHC300 (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for proving my point...so some words are ok for one race to say, but not another? Sorry, but I am colorblind, and so a word is either appropriate or it isn't. You can easily do a google search and find numerous examples where monkey is used as a verb by all sorts of writers posting articles for major news orgs. Don't let your hate keep you from the truth.ChickDaniels (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Not every reference to a monkey is a racist slur, but calling a black man a monkey is a racist slur. Saying "that black man, even though he's articulate, is going to monkey things up" sure reeks of racism to anyone who's not trying to ignore the smell. Meanwhile, DeSantis has also recently been revealed to be an admin on a Facebook page that hosts tons of racist and sexist memes, as per the Miami New Times [1] -- this may be yet more evidence worth citing of DeSantis' predilection for "controversial" and "racially charged" language. (To make it clear, those are just polite euphemisms for "racist."
Secretlyironic (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Secretlyironic - You're being misleading in your comment above. DeSantis made no reference to his opponent's race. What he said was: “Let’s build off the success we’ve had on Governor Scott. 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 clearly talking about POLICY and not about his opponent's race. Saying that they shouldn't mess up what he viewed as a good economic situation in Florida by electing leadership which would implement more socialistic policies.
If it were a "dog whistle" then why is it that only people on the political left seem to have heard it?...And, in any case, why would racist voters even need a "dog whistle" to notice that the Democratic Party candidate was Black and to vote against him because of that?
Doesn't matter what you think or what the logic is/isn't. It only matters what Reliable Sources say. Grandpallama (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
The previous problem with the second sentence and its claims about "monkey" being perceived as racist language were not NPOV; however, they were original research and synthesis, because the editor who added them used a two-year old source to substantiate the racist undertones of the word and speak about it in Wikipedia's voice. This is still very much a current news story, but now the sources are reporting not just on the comment itself but on reactions to it; I've since tweaked the wording and replaced the dubious source with a current one to reflect that. Everyone commenting here should also remember that the talkpage is for discussing edits, not the logic behind whether or not "monkey" is racist or whether or not it was intended to offend people. Stick to NPOV by sticking to what the RS tell us. Grandpallama (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be a section on "Allegations of racism" --The Miami New Times[2] seems to have found a number of them. Secretlyironic (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2018
This edit request to Ron DeSantis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change 'monkey this up' by electing his Democratic challenger, who is African American.' to "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. That is not going to work. That's not going to be good for Florida."
I don't think that the lead should highlight DeSantis' former position as a JAG attorney regardless of how it's reworded. It is simply not a significant point that should be covered in the lead and DeSantis has been reticent to discuss that part of his career, so it is also WP:UNDUE.- MrX 🖋 19:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Source that he is "reticent to discuss that part of his career"? -- ψλ ● ✉✓ 20:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Let's start with sources that indicate that this is a significant point for this biography.- MrX 🖋 21:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment: there's currently insufficient sourced material in the article to justify this mention in the 1st sentence in the lead. If this content were developed then it would make sense to mention it in the lead (perhaps not in the very first sentence). Separately, "Author" should be removed from the 1st sentence; he's certainly not notable as an author. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
If Gillum was a lawyer and served in JAG would it be in the lede? You betcha. WP:LEDE is clear. This is a position he held for years and is a major part of his career. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but not in the very first sentence. It could be worded in this fashion, in the 2nd para: DeSantis received a law degree from Harward, and served with Navy JAG before starting a career in politics in 2013. DeSantis ran in Florida's 2016 U.S. Senate election.... Or something like this. His education and career prior to politics is relevant, but it's not something he's notable for. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I could live with K.e.coffman's suggestion to mention it in the second paragraph. I also agree that author should not be in the lead sentence. It shouldn't even be in the lead at all. The Gillum article has zero to do with how we write this one, since we are not writing campaign brochures.- MrX 🖋 22:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree; I don't think it needs to be highlighted in the lead as it was. I also have no major objection to K.e.coffman's suggestion. ContentEditman (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Can the editors asking to omit that he was a military lawyer from the lede point me to an example of another person on Wikipedia who has their legal career and military service omitted from the lede? Seems weird. Was a major part of his career and it seems we normally identify veterans. He served in Iraq and Guantanamo? Seems like a pretty big deal. Covered extensively in the body and should be noted in the lede. I'm flexible on wording. If Gillum was a lawyer and served in the military would we note it in the lede of his article? FloridaArmy (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I personally think this aspect of his career is lede worthy. It doesn't need to be the first sentence though. It was a major part of his career. ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 17:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
OK, let's go with K.e.coffman's wording proposal. That should satisfy everyone.- MrX 🖋 18:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
"Monkey" revisited
The entire quote is important as it gives context to DeSantis' comments: "We've got to work hard to make sure that we continue Florida going in a good direction. Let's build off the success we've had on Gov. Scott. 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. That is not going to work. That's not going to be good for Florida." The first portion prior to "The last thing we need..." is being removed and should not be removed, in my opinion. Anyone else's thoughts? -- ψλ ● ✉✓ 14:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
No, the first part adds nothing really of value. The relevant portion is the one about monkeying things up. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There's always value in context. Without it, the reader is not fully informed. Reverting the content back in while discussion is happening (and after you commented, which is when the discussion actually commenced) is totally not cool and not a collegial, productive editing move per Wikipedia policy. Such actions can spark hostility and an unpleasant editing environment. In the interest of maintaining a non-hostile and pleasant, enjoyable editing environment, I request that you revert it back to what it was when the discussion started. Doing go would be good form, show good faith, and show an interest in the good of the article for the sake of all readers. We can start an RfC with all interested projects notified to get a wide range of opinions, of course. Maybe that would solve the disagreement in the best manner. -- ψλ ● ✉✓ 14:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree; the first part adds nothing but fluff to try and thin out the part that section details. ContentEditman (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with ✉✓. Context very clearly matters here, it's not "fluff" if the context is what determines whether or not "monkey" was racially charged--particularly considering DeSantis' own defense was to point to that context. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
The consensus is to use version 1. Editors found that version 1 discusses the notable aspect of the quote and that version 2 is longer and does not provide more context or make the presentation of the material more neutral.
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.
Which version should be included in the 2018 gubernatorial candidacy section regarding DeSantis' "monkey" comment?
Version 1 (current): "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. That is not going to work. That's not going to be good for Florida."
Version 2: "We've got to work hard to make sure that we continue Florida going in a good direction. Let's build off the success we've had on Gov. Scott. 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. That is not going to work. That's not going to be good for Florida."
Support - "Attaboy Rick Scott" is campaign fodder. DeSantis made a remark that was widely-construed as a racist dog-whistle. That's the information that is encyclopedic.- MrX 🖋 16:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Support - The first part of the quote is completely redundant. The notable aspect of the quote is in regards to the 'monkey things up' comment. The first part of the quote adds nothing of value and may even obfuscate the notable aspect of the quote. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Support - Still agree, not relevant to that section as it adds nothing. ContentEditman (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Support – This is the part of DeSantis' speech that is deemed controversial. The quoted sentence illustrates why. Anything beyond the quote given is illustrating the speech, not the controversy. HopsonRoad (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Support: the full quote is unnecessary; the controversy was about the use of "articulate" and "monkey it up" when referring to a POC. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Support - It's not apparent to me that adding the full quote makes it any more neutral or provides more context. Just makes it longer... NickCT (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Support That is the part that is noteworthy and will be relevant in ten years.Casprings (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Support Keep the only part that has gotten national attention. We know he loves puppies, but... Activist (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Support Other version is too long and confusing and adds little to no value R2File:Droid small icon.tiff (bleep) 23:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Version 1 is perfect, IMHO; brief but it makes the point well. Wikipedia articles are not intended to educate voters in the upcoming election. This is an encyclopedia. Peter K Burian (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Support (moved from version 2). This is just as neutral as version 2, which introduces minor trivia, but shorter. I would support making it even shorter, but version 1 is better than version 2. wumbolo^^^ 17:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Version 2
Support This version gives context and a complete picture of what DeSantis was saying. Without the context, readers will get a different and incomplete picture of where DeSantis was coming from. It's important for an encyclopedia that readers come to for unbiased and non-synthesized content to have the whole picture, not just part of it. Especially when something has been made out to be controversial when, in fact, it is not. Also, see FloridaArmy's comments below for possible change in wording, which I would support as a compromise. -- ψλ ● ✉✓ 16:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Leaning support Personally I don't think it matters a great deal, but let's keep the entire context of the statement, rhetoric and all, until the elections are over at least. Thanks, L3X1◊distænt write◊ 13:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Support This version gives context, based upon the comments of Winkelvi above.--CharlesShirley (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
We could preface the comment by saying Ron DeSantis said Florida was "going in a good direction" or "going in a good direction" under Scott's leadership and then follow with the quote. I think it's worth providing context and accuracy about what he said. I would leave out the "allegedly racist" part before it and stick to explaining the controversy after. Stay away from weaselly stuff and allegations. Readers can read the comment and why it was controversial and decide for themselves. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Good points, and I agree 100%, FloridaArmy. -- ψλ ● ✉✓ 17:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Collapsing per request. --Winkelvi (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Precisely. The "controversy" was manufactured by media - news media and social media. It was promoted by using just the portion of the quote currently represented in the article. With that manipulation of the facts and omission of context, the "controversy" lives on, even though no controversy truly exists. Except now it's gone beyond news and social media and is also in Wikipedia, giving the impression that DeSantis is racist. Is there anything prior to this that shows even a smidgen of racism on the part of DeSantis? No, but this is a good way to start that kind of momentum toward racism, even where none exists. Taken in context, it's harder to claim racism. But, when taken out of context, seeds of doubt and suspicion are planted - which is the intent of media that created this "controversy". That, my fellow Wiki-editors, is how propaganda starts and takes root in the minds of those who aren't able to sift things properly and think for themselves. And now Wikipedia is knee deep in it (not just this article, but practically every GOP-related political biography and non-bio article in Wikipedia. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, something that informs completely. But, without the full quote and context, we aren't informing completely, just with the parts that plants seeds of doubt and mistrust. Which is exactly the purpose and mission of propaganda (as well as those promoting it). If you're comfortable with doing that, so be it. I'm from the old school that believes encyclopedias are to give complete information that allows the reader to make up their own mind based on facts, not created "controversy". You've always struck me as a thoughtful and reasonable person, HopsonRoad, which is why I'm taking the time to respond to you in depth. Normally, I wouldn't go to such lengths, but I think you just might be missing the deeper point here that goes beyond just a few words that sum up a soundbite. Take care. -- ψλ ● ✉✓ 21:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
And normally I'd remove such posts per NOTFORUM. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Are you following me around again, Drmies? It sure would seem so. Please back off. Thanks. -- ψλ ● ✉✓ 21:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh you wish someone was interested in you. No, just Recent changes. Whatever happened to respect for authority? Tsk tsk. Drmies (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
You're playing the "authority" card now? What happened to "admins are merely janitors with mops"? I can respect a janitor for the job they have to do because I don't want to do that type of job, but I will never respect someone who claims to be a janitor when they are, in fact, really working for the CIA (a metaphor, but you have a doctorate, so I'm assuming you'll understand the deeper meaning). I'm now done replying to your baiting attempt; feel free to have the last word, should you so choose. -- ψλ ● ✉✓ 22:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I ask those commenting here to bear in mind that this is a discussion of the article and how it covers a perceived controversy not a discussion about the merits of the candidate or whether the controversy is justified in the eyes of an observer. HopsonRoad (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Another reference that could support a section on "allegations of racism" Washington Post article titled "GOP candidate for Fla. governor spoke at racially charged events." [1]. (And yes, "racially charged" is a euphemism for "racist.") Secretlyironic (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Good find Secretlyironic. This is being picked up internationally now as well as in major US sources. This will need to be covered in a little more detail.- MrX 🖋 14:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Section on 2018 gubernatorial campaign
I am tagging this section as unbalanced and POV. I have taken a couple of steps toward fixing the problem by making the sentence about David Horowitz's events more neutral and adding DeSantis's defense to the accusation that his "monkey" remark was a racist dog whistle (I have no idea whether it was or it wasn't, but either way, it is disgraceful for the encyclopedia to include a paragraph about an accusation against someone without mentioning the person's response to the accusation), but a lot more is needed. The section almost entirely consists of negative information about the campaign; information other than attacks on DeSantis should be added to balance things out. SunCrow (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
SunCrow, what other information is underrepresented? We have to follow what sources write. We do not try to balance articles by removing unfavorable material. Your opinion that something is an attack or disgraceful has no bearing on how we write this article, per WP:V and WP:NPOV. - MrX 🖋 10:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
MrX, I would respectfully invite you to read my comment again. You are responding to things I didn't say. SunCrow (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I have just added additional information to the section, including projections about the outcome of the race, the positions DeSantis has taken in the race, and the identity of DeSantis's running mate. I believe that any page or section dealing with someone's candidacy for public office should include this type of information if it is available from reliable sources. I have also added a sentence on DeSantis's public statement of disagreement with a recent comment made by the President. SunCrow (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
OK, I've removed some one liners that do not seem to be encyclopedic. I personally don't think DeSantis' disagreement with Trump about Hurricane Maria is noteworthy, since it seems that most of the planet disagrees with Trump on that matter.- MrX 🖋 14:08, 23 September 2018 (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.
Racially charged conference
One editor removed text on DeSantis attending a racially charged conference (reported on by both WaPo and the Naples Daily Times). The first edit summary[4] inaccurately claimed that the text claimed that DeSantis "attended for racist reasons" (it did not). The second edit summary[5] inaccurately claimed that the content was WP:SYNTH, even though the text adheres entirely to the cited sources, and strangely argued that the text solely belongs on the Wikipedia article for the David Horowitz Freedom Center (even though the noteworthy event here is that a mainstream candidate seeking high office attended the conference - what's notable about the event is DeSantis per RS). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I think this material should remain in the article because it give a clearer picture of DeSantis' views and influences. It's certainly not SYNTH, since the Washington Post article makes a clear connection between the conference attendance and the monkey comments.- MrX 🖋 22:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of referring to a conference as racist or racially charged. I don't believe an event should be described as racist. It seems to me it would better to be more specific e.g. to describe the event as one where many racist remarks were made, or one where many racist acts were committed.Slipandslide (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
This is nazi antisemitism and bigotry... David Horowitz is a Zionist Jew who harbors no ill will to anyone other than those who have called for the extermination of the Jewish people. He's on video calling out supporters of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah who very publcily have stated they want all Jews to return to Israel so that it's easier to hunt down all Jews for extermination in one fell swoop. Their words, not mine. Labeling Horowitz as racist is absurd. This is just defamation at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.88.149.241 (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
DeSantis' First Job
With Ron DeSantis' ad stating that his first job was for $6.00 and he had to pay for work boots with his first paycheck, I'd like to see information, in the "Early Life and Education" section, of what that job was, the start and end dates, who he worked for, and what he did for them. I think his use of that job in his ads makes this very relevant. Stevelitt (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
The election was called, please undo the edit
The news networks still have the election called for Ron Desantis for now, please undo the edit of the person who removed him as being the next governor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.145.105.99 (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Per Flordia election law, being within .50% triggers a machine recount. This is a legal matter that is decided by law not newspapers. Newspapers are not the courts or any legal entity when it comes to elections. You only have to look at the 1948 election to see a case of newspapers being wrong when it comes to calling elections.FusionLord (talk) 04:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
DeSantis indeed won the election & there's no recount being scheduled. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
the A.P NYT and CNN and other news networks have the election called for desantis
I never said newspapers i said the media networks and the A.P The A.P is the one to usually declare it, Until they say it is too close to call and cancel out the winner it should be stated that he is the winner until they say otherwise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8000:1AEF:DF00:4039:76EA:6A60:10D0 (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
As I said above "Per Flordia election law, being within .50% triggers a machine recount. This is a legal matter that is decided by law not newspapers. Newspapers are not the courts or any legal entity when it comes to elections. You only have to look at the 1948 election to see a case of newspapers being wrong when it comes to calling elections."FusionLord (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
"DeSantis's lead of about 36,000 votes is within the threshold of a machine recount of ballots that begins Saturday afternoon along with those from the U.S. Senate race and Agriculture Commissioner."[6] - MrX 🖋 00:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Lopez-Cantera
There's zero sourcing on this idea that Lopez-Cantera will become governor in January. He probably will, but to say so without a source is original research. (Presumably, such a source would also include the day he's expected to become governor, so we don't have to hedge everything). --Golbez (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
If you look at DeSantis's current photo, it seems that the photo is badly cropped and has too much blank space to it. I removed the photo to a more compact one a few times and the uploader of the photo Zzannoni1956 (talk) said, and I quote, he was 'using that photo as at its resoltuon (sic) on Wikipedia it looks fine and it looks similar to Lt Gov Nuñez photo and has the state emblem and flag , something that is normally in a official portrait.' However, I checked the source of the photo and it was just cropped from a larger photo of the Governor meeting with someone and is not an official portrait photo. I suggest therefore that we replace the current photo with a few good other photos (the one I initially tried to replace it as). Any thoughts on this? --Daffy123 (talk) 08:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I think both photos are inferior compared to the previous congressional photo.. The cropped photo is awkward because of how it was cropped from a group photo and the quality is inferior because of lighting and color balance. I may be able to salvage something from it though with the help of Photoshop. It would loke something like this. The other photo has very unflattering lighting. The governor website is still using his congressional photo: [7] Eventually, we will have an official portrait to use.- MrX 🖋 11:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the contribution. How about we just use his congressional photo in the meantime then? --Daffy123 (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I would support using the congressional photo for now. The person is the subject, not the regalia, so the flag and seal add nothing of importance to the photo in my opinion.- MrX 🖋 15:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The present photo look okay to me. I looked at several articles on governors and photos of them with state emblem and or flag seems common. I think a photo of the subject as governor, their current and most notable office, is preferable to one of them in their prior office. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
DeSantis, February 7, 2019 (Zzannoni1956)
This photo also look okay to me. Os ot the same one more cropped? I don't see a problem including more of his body. Regardless, an official portrait should be released before too long. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
That's a terrible composition. A portrait should consist of head and upper torso; not head, shoulders, and huge seal. If someone could provide a link to the original I would be happy to download it, color correct it, and crop it, and then upload it to Commons.- MrX 🖋 17:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
[8] This is the original photo link. Is it just me or does he have a really big shoulder? --Daffy123 (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, he has apparently gained weight in the past couple of years, however those are not the same photos. Note the color of the tie and the position of the seal relative to the subject. I believe the crop comes from a group photo with more people. - MrX 🖋 20:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
DeSantis, February 7, 2019 (MrX)OK, I found the red tie photo. It's not great, but at least it is cropped like a portrait. It could also be further cropped. - MrX 🖋 21:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading that photo. I'll put that as the photo until a new official portrait appears on the website. --Daffy123 (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I emailed the governors office twice now about uploading an official photo and they’ve yet to take it or respond to me about it. Their website still hasn’t even updated the biography pages for the Gov. , Lt Gov and the First Lady all of it still says “coming soon” though it’s been now 50 days--Zzannoni1956
The photo that is to the right, and is now in the infobox, has horrible quality and is horribly positioned. His House photo can easily be cropped to make him more center... if that's what the complaint is. I would prefer a high quality image over some low-quality image that has terrible lighting and is too long. Corky 17:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I've cropped it here.. Corky 17:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not aware that the cropping of the house photo was an issue. I think the issue is that it is about seven years old. I agree that the photos to the right are inferior in quality.- MrX 🖋 18:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
DeSantis, February 26, 2019 (Zzannoni1956)
@Zzannoni1956: You've changed the infobox image way too many times now, so let's refrain from making additional changes. Also, please upload these images to Wikimedia Commons instead. Other than that, the photo of DeSantis at his cabinet meeting is an improvement in terms of graininess, but it's still not clear enough to see all of the details. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Would this cropped photo of DeSantis at the 2017 CPAC work? --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I think the current one is fine until he uploads an official portrait the CPAC one is clearer but when you reduce the pixel size anyways when you’re on the Wikipedia page they all look quite grainy. Hopefully by the next few weeks DeSantis will upload an actual photo --Zzannoni1956 —Preceding undated comment added 14:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Provocateurs
Wumbolo takes issue with the article using the word "provocateurs" to describe speakers at David Horowitz Freedom Center conferences. The Washington Post article uses the word provocateurs. Our use of the word in this article does not constitute WP:PLAGIARISM as claimed in Wumbolo's edit summary. Naples Daily News also uses the word "provocateur". Milo Yiannopoulos is frequently referred to as a provocateur [9] and he describes himself as that. Same for Steve Bannon. [10] I'm opening this section so that consensus can be determined. Pinging ContentEditman who is also involved.- MrX 🖋 12:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree, the reference says provocateur so we should stick to the well sourced references, not put things in our own words that differ from proper references. ContentEditman (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
That's it, if you're going to use Google search as a source, I am not going to engage anymore. The Naples Daily News reference does not use the word in nearly the same way as WaPo and the article. wumbolo^^^ 12:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand your attitude about this. Obviously, I was using Google to show that there are a plethora of sources that refer to these provocateurs as provocateurs, not as a source in itself. Since you have chosen not to engage, I will revert to the status quo ante and I trust you will respect that until you are able to sway editors to your view.- MrX 🖋 13:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2020
This edit request to Ron DeSantis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
change "urged the legislature to support the use of smokeable medical cannabis,[3], and supported budget increases[4]." to "urged the legislature to support the use of smokeable medical cannabis[3], and supported budget increases[4]." 91.139.85.179 (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
NPOV vio in lead: lead only talks about DeSantis's "bipartisanship" and uncontroversial policy changes
There is a blatant NPOV violation in the lead to this article.[11] I removed this NPOV violation, but it was recently restored by the editor Calidum who is stalking me (the editor has never edited this article before):
(i) The lead emphasizes that DeSantis has been "bipartisan" as a governor, and then lists uncontroversial policies he's implemented as Governor. However, the body to the article includes various controversial and distinctly non-bipartisan actions that DeSantis has taken. Thus, it's a clear NPOV violation to cherrypick items for the lead in this manner.
(ii) The content that is in the lead is also content that is NOT in the body.
Thus, if the lead should cover the actions that DeSantis has taken as Governor, it needs to (i) cover it neutrally and (ii) actually reflect the body of the article. Calidum's rationale for restoring this blatantly inappropriate lead was "Revert large scale removal by a POV pusher", which is not substantive. Furthermore, the fact that the editor stalked me here raises serious questions about the abilities of this editor to contribute to the encyclopedia. The encyclopedia is not a playground for him to destroy just because he is angry at certain editors and wants revenge. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Let's focus on content and not editors. I agree that language like "sought an increase in bipartisanship within the state legislature and implemented various reforms" is vague and does not accurately reflect the full scope of his tenure as governor. In Wikipedia policy terms, I agree that including mentions of rather small-scale policy initiatives (like having "urged the legislature to support the use of smokeable medical cannabis") should not be included when more significant matters (e.g., DeSantis's handling of the coronavirus pandemic, some significant education policy initiatives) are omitted. Moreover, as Snoogans mentions above, some of the content in the lead section is not mentioned in the body. Neutralitytalk 17:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
In July 2020, as Florida had become a global epicenter of the coronavirus
I am done with Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.110.139 (talk) 05:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Lead
Content that reflected the body and the language of reliable sources (such as this[12]) has been removed and replaced with language about how DeSantis has been criticized for this or that. The NPOV version that reflects what RS say should be restored.Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Approval Ratings in Header
Governor DeSantis is not the only governor whose approval ratings have declined since February. One poll had this result back in May, 7 months ago. Including this misleading claim in the header is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.152.16 (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
. The cropped photo
is awkward because of how it was cropped from a group photo and the quality is inferior because of lighting and color balance. I may be able to salvage something from it though with the help of Photoshop. It would loke something like this
. The other photo
has very unflattering lighting. The governor website is still using his congressional photo: [7] Eventually, we will have an official portrait to use.- MrX 🖋 11:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=small}
