Talk:Political positions of Ron DeSantis

Orphaned references in Political positions of Ron DeSantis
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Political positions of Ron DeSantis's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto2": From Ron DeSantis:  From November 2015 Paris attacks:  From Donald Trump:  

Reference named "auto1": From Gay bar:  From November 2015 Paris attacks:  From West Bank:  From Ron DeSantis: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Right Wing Populist
I removed @Jenny Death's "right wing populist" addition. This came up on Ron DeSantis, but I would lean towards WP:REDFLAG. I don't doubt some have called DeSantis a populist, but multiple, high quality sources are needed to justify inclusion. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Of the two sources I included, would you not include either? I know they're generally considered unreliable, but I thought including a Washington Examiner link would show the label isn't partisan. As for why I think it'd be a necessary addition - "conservative Republican" just seems pretty vague, when many sources point out that his ideology leans towards populism (including comparisons to Trumpism and the Tea Party movement).
 * Here are some other sources that back it up (and all of which I'm pretty sure are from higher-quality sources than the Examiner, although one is marked as an opinion page) - would any of these be sufficient?
 * Jenny Death (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Conservative Republican" is a very common term in American politics. "Right wing populist" isn't really that common. These things can change over time, but I'd avoid fringe terms to describe a politician. Others may disagree, but that's my pov. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's not a common term colloquially, but it's hardly fringe either - I think there's certainly enough sourcing from mainstream American outlets referring to his views as such to justify its inclusion. And I think it presents a clearer view of his ideology when added than just "conservative Republican" alone, which I presume means he's on the right-wing of an already conservative party (but again, feels rather vague). Jenny Death (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * " "Conservative Republican" is a very common term in American politics." It sounds like meaningless jargon to me, while everyone knows what a populist is. Dimadick (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In US politics, most politicians are either members of the Republican/Democratic parties and are described as moderates/centrists/liberal/conservative/progressives. I'm sure there are exceptions, but there needs to be compelling reason to call a governor from Florida something different. Does DeSantis call himself something unique? Are there examples of other high profile American politicians described differently? Nemov (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Covering more on the "war on woke"
I would encourage editors to consider moving DeSantis' cultural views and material related to the "war on woke" as phrased by some outlets into its own section. Presently, the article potentially gives too much weight to foreign relations in making it a Level 2 heading while sorting every other domestic event into its own level 2 header and subsequently making major domestic issues level 3 over level 2. It may also be necessary to split part of the article into Social policy of Ron DeSantis if necessary.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 00:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Isn't that mostly just cultural/educational issues. I think that fits into domestic policy. Nemov (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Social Security and Medicare
Looks like we could use a section on Social Security and Medicare. Here are a couple potential sources:


 * Reyes, Yacob. “DeSantis takes different tack on Social Security, Medicare than when he was in Congress”, Politifact via Tampa Bay Times (17 Mar 2023).

&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Contorno, Steve. ”DeSantis says GOP will not 'mess with Social Security,' as Democrats and Trump slam his past support for privatization”, CNN (2 Mar 2023).
 * Done.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Nemov white-washing entry with arbitrary removal
His removal of sourced content on DeSantis' very noteworthy atitudes to LGBT rights is nothing but arbitrary and is an obvious case of POV warring. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * What does the removed section about Bud Light have to do with DeSantis' specific policy position? The overall section is already super long and just because something is sourced doesn't automatically justify inclusion. So instead of casting WP:ASPERSIONS how about acting in good faith. If you want to keep this in the article how about working on reducing this overaly long section to something more readable? Nemov (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You have also tried to remove any content mentioning DeSantis's treatment of the Orlando shooting victims and his opposition to marriage equality, even though the content was well sourced and obviously belong. This is not good faith editing, this is white-washing and POV-pushing. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've removed and added a ton of content to this article. I helped create it. Summarizing the article so it's readable is an unenviable task on politicians because it's always making someone unhappy. Again, if you have issues with what is included or not included in the article please summarize the section to cover this person's political positions. This article isn't for every bill the person supported or didn't support. I'll ask you one last time to quit making accusations about my motivations. Nemov (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It takes only a single person to create an article on Wikipedia. And that wasn't you. So no, you didn't help create this entry unless you've been using an alt. If merely adding and removing content means you helped create it, then every single editor who has contributed here, including me, can boast of helping to create this entry. And regardless, no single editor, including the actual creator of this entry, has the power to decide alone what should stay and what should be deleted from the text.
 * And by the way, blanking content without replacing it with anything, as you've done repeatedly, is not how "summarizing" works; it's just plain content removal, if not censorship. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And it wasn't you. Weird thing to argue about when there's an audit history of the article. All beside the point anyway, please summarize the section to include the information if you believe it should be included. Do it any way you see fit. Continually adding information to an overlay long sections simply because there's a source isn't how summarizing works either. If the policy was to include every single reliably sourced piece of information about Ron DeSantis this article would go on forever. If you're unwilling to do so then there's no point in continuing this discussion. Thanks. Nemov (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Getting back to the subject of this section, it appears to me that the DeSantis political position amid the Bud Light controversy has received so much coverage that it's well-deserving of its own paragraph. Removal does seem to smack of white-washing. An article on "political positions" doesn't have to be limited to just specific policies. Even if it did, DeSantis' policies on LGBTQ issues have also had much coverage, and the Bud Light case is one of the most prominent, probably even top-2, along with the drag queen policies. Wes sideman (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * What does Bud Light's sales falling by 24% have to do in an article about Ron DeSantis' political positions. His political positions are subject of this article. It's not the sales figures for Bud Light. Plus, his opinions regarding this mirrors what happened with Disney which has received way more coverage and is already covered. If you want to mention this, then do it as a sentence or two with that. It's not whitewashing when someone attempts to summarize an article. Nemov (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You didn’t summarise the incident, you removed it. Fact is, DeSantis’ position on LGBT led him to boycott Bud Light, leading to price fall, leading to DeSantis calling for Bud Light to be investigated for LGBT matters. These are all connected and notable. Without the price fall, DeSantis could not have called for the investigation.  starship .paint  (RUN) 22:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the content is notable for inclusion given the significant coverage in reliable sources. As has been stated, removing content outright is not summarization. The argument for summarization is a weak one anyway given the article is within readable prose size at 6,363 words. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  11:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)