Talk:Ron DeSantis

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

Abortion ban[edit]

Since @AlsoWukai reverted[1] for a 2nd time I'll bring it up here. I changed the word "ban" to regulation. I understand why the word ban is used politically and sensationally, but it's confusing in this instance because abortion is legal in Florida with some restrictions. This is like characterizing a speed limit or gun regulation as a ban. A ban is synonymous with prohibition and it shouldn't' be used unless there's a prohibition against abortion. I should note, this section is likely being moved to a separate article that's currently being drafted that focuses on the Govenorship of Ron DeSantis. Nemov (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Bans" is more informative than "regulates" in this context. "Abortion is legal in Florida with some restrictions" is less accurate than "abortion is banned in Florida with some exceptions". To get a sense of what RS are saying, I checked the first few reliable results on a news search for "florida abortion ron desantis", and all three use ban ([2], [3], [4]). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Abortion is legal in Florida with some restrictions" is less accurate than "abortion is banned in Florida with some exceptions". States and countries all over the world have abortion regulations set around number of weeks. These regulation generally range from 6 to 15 weeks. France's 14 week regulation isn't a ban. Why would 6 weeks be a ban? This leads to confusion because when people see "ban" they think prohibition. Explaining the regulation is far clearer than slapping the word ban on things that aren't probibited. Reliable sources aren't immune from bias and it's more accurate and neutral to call this what it actually is and that's a regulation. Nemov (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the language that was there until the most recent changes makes the most sense: it's accurate to say a certain type of abortions (those which occur after six weeks) are banned with exceptions. I think it's a tidier way of conveying the same point, rather than saying "they are regulated, these are the regulations". ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to agree with the logic that use of the word "regulate" seems to be more accurate. When I hear the word ban I do think complete regulation. Where as 6 weeks is a regulation. MaximusEditor (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Papers of record and media on all sides of the aisle have described the abortion politics in Florida, Texas, and other states as “bans with exceptions.” “Regulation” obfuscates the policy and inaccurately portrays the level of medical leniency given to providers during the gestation period post-six weeks. When procedures are only allowed as exceptions to an overlaying policies, not openly allowed with certain limitations, the word “ban” is much more accurate in both the medical and policy sense. Cheers. (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments on slavery[edit]

Why isn't this mentioned in the article? Could be included in the critical race theory/education views section. I can add it if need be, but just curious, because this seems to be quite newsworthy and notable. conman33 (. . .talk) 16:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per WP:BUSINESSINSIDER, I'd like to see another source mustered on this. If multiple reliable source cover these comments, we can definitely consider inclusion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Falls into wp:recent territory for me. It's not central to his biography unless this receives significant coverage for weeks. Nemov (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Corresponding statements from WaPo here -- but the full quote is not as clear -- DeSantis says he wasn't involved in the curriculum making himself, says "You should talk to them about it. I didn’t do it. I wasn’t involved in it." twitter thread
If it ends up being added, it would slot in well into the 'critical race theory' section.

Maximilian775 (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, I didn't know about the Business Insider Wikipedia guideline, too. Other sources have it covered too. Thanks all. conman33 (. . .talk) 19:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS. Also, Business Insider is not good enough to be used in this context. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 00:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right. Business Insider hasn't won a Pulitzer Prize since last year. Any claim that they have toward being a RSS pales in comparison to the credibility rightfully earned by being (self-proclaimed) "really good" at checkers. Activist (talk) 07:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. By the way, the Pulitzer was for a cartoon. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Activist: Disparaging a consensus decision on reliable sourcing and making a snide remark about someone's username are both strategies unlikely to persuade anyone. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are we discussing Business Insider? This theory of DeSantis' and the widespread associated condemnation was covered at length by all mainstream media. SPECIFICO talk 23:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Partially because only the Insider and a single WashPo story have been linked. If you have found references, link them here or in the article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
abbondanza. SPECIFICO talk 00:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sourcing isn't really the issue. It's WP:NOTNEWS/WP:RECENT... unless something else happens this is likely forgotten in a few weeks. Nemov (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. SPECIFICO talk 00:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After reading through the discussion I also agree its Not News/Recent issue, not so much to do with sourcing. MaximusEditor (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


If anyone has a way they want to articulate this, please put it below here to keep it separate from the discussion above, which is mostly oriented towards the use of a deprecated source (which we have no reason to use nor discuss further). I don't see a good way to put this into the article now but considering that the metapieces on the subject are coming out this week, I think we'll have a good sense in the next few days. Please also add specific sources below. Note that per this CNN piece this is still a developing story with him continuing to add more commentary. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we cover it in this main BLP, I’d just let him speak (and deny) for himself: “[T]hat particular passage wasn’t saying that slavery was a benefit. It was saying there was resourcefulness, and people acquired skills in spite of slavery, not because of it.” We also might want to discuss including his recent suggestion that he’d pardon Trump. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not an allegation to be denied, and this isn't the place to promote his attemped erasure. SPECIFICO talk 02:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What erasure? Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The CNN thing is about Ron Peri. The pardon stuff would be fine at the political positions article. Neither are really important enough to mention on this biography for the reasons I've already outlined. Nemov (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Repeated Word[edit]

“On May 24, 2023, DeSantis announced announced”

Repeated word in the introduction. Article is protected so I cannot fix this, if anyone has permission, please do so. BradCow (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well spotted; have removed. Thanks! ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 12:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I just added the last five words to this material:

My edit summary: “Adding five words re. wedding. This makes the sentence fit better with the preceding sentence. Many people may not realize that Disney does Catholic weddings. And we don’t discuss his wife’s religion so it’s otherwise not clear what type of ceremony it was.” Please note that the article has said for many months what type of wedding ceremony it was, up until this week. Instead of restoring the longstanding language (“and the marriage was officiated by a Catholic priest”), I condensed it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]