Talk:Ron DeSantis 2024 presidential campaign/Archive 1

Page needs large amounts of expansion
Feel free to help expand it. WorldMappings (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you were unaware of the draft page that was created six months ago? A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, shoot, there was a draft page?
 * How could I get this page deleted, in that case? WorldMappings (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You could request a speedy deletion, explaining that you were unaware of the draft page. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries, I have merged the draft history. BD2412  T 23:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Addition of Jeb Bush and George Soros' comments
In the grander development of DeSantis' campaign, neither of these figures hold much weight in their statements, and they can't even be considered endorsements. Hence, their inclusion in this article is incredibly strange. I'd like to note that Soros is a particularly controversial figure and the sentence may be prone to vandalism. I'm not opposed to having a section dedicated to remarks, but Bush and Soros aren't enough to sustain said section. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is an inherent contradiction in this assessment. The fact that "Soros is a particularly controversial figure" is precisely what makes his commenting on the possibility of a DeSantis candidacy notable, and precisely why it was reported in the Associated Press. The significance of Jeb Bush weighing in should go without saying. BD2412  T 00:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Associated Press appears to be debunking a claim made by Internet users that Soros was endorsing DeSantis. The opinions that he may or may not hold does not affect the election, and neither does Bush's. These are one-off statements with no impact. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The AP account also specifically notes that Soros expressed a preference of DeSantis over Trump, which is why the "debunking" was required, signifying that these statements have indeed had an "impact". This question should probably be opened up to wider community attention. BD2412  T 01:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The debunking isn't made clear in the article. It would definitely be noteworthy if misinformation about the DeSantis campaign reaches the point where it would warrant a separate section, but on its own, I don't see how it changes his campaign in any way. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That individual editors may not see the significance of developments is precisely why we rely on what is reported in sources. BD2412  T 01:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Said development has not been demonstrated against the background of DeSantis' campaign as a whole. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This week's New York Times: "‘Ron DeSoros’? Conspiracy Theorists Target Trump’s Rival". BD2412  T 01:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reminding me of this article, I had actually shared it with a few friends but didn't consider that it could be used here. I'm fine with creating a separate paragraph for these conspiracy theories, as it does appear as though this may impact the campaign. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added it. All of this is, of course, pre-candidacy thus far, the campaign itself just being announced. BD2412  T 01:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I like the way you have configured the information as it is now presented on the page. BD2412  T 20:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Lock the article
Can we semi protect the article, for reason of media speculation and potential vandalism? Ccole2006 (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree, an article about a person this controversial is at risk of vandalisation or propagandizing. GramCanMineAway (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't preemptively protect articles. If there's persistent vandalism, the article can be protected. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

former president Trump
i believe mr. Trumps horrible performance in handling of covis crises should be exposed.Even after a million deaths under his watch he publicly claimed that the covid was a political issue and would go away after election.he could not save himself from covid as well his close associates like gov. christie.

how could he make America safe with this kind of of performance.as regards the foreign policy he was laughed at un and the G7 meeting and publicly defended putin by disputing the report by his own secret service information and questioned as to why why would putin engage in anti us activities.

his handling of iran crises when he changed his changed his mind at the last possible moment because of resulting loss of lives.A competent commander would get assessment from military expert before any action is launched.

He was willing to jeopardize lives of congressmen and his own vice president by not taking timely action.how can citizens trust with his ability or temperament to handle big crises. 2600:4041:454B:2D00:2834:5CF0:2F33:1898 (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I question the relevance this has to the topic and what issues exactly you are raising with this article. This is the wrong article for this kind of thing. GramCanMineAway (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Poll section
I changed the wording from "...should've strengthened his presidency", to "...should've strengthened his presidential campaign". Another alternative, could be "...should've strengthened his presidential candidacy". I made the change, because DeSantis is the governor of Florida, not the president of the United States. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think "should have strengthened" sounds overly prescriptive. In whose opinion should it have done anything? Perhaps the abortion ban was expected to strengthen his campaign; I really don't see anything in the source supporting that either, though. BD2412  T 00:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Lede wording
The back-and-forth reverts on the lede have been tiring. There are several ways to word the lede and all of them are fine. I'll lay out some objectives that the lede should strive for:
 * DeSantis' governorship should be mentioned. The numeral that's currently present in the lead doesn't hold much significance; personally, "governor of Florida" is fine enough.
 * DeSantis' party affiliation must be mentioned. Non-U.S. editors may take issue with the preference of "Republican" over "Republican Party", but the inclusion of "Party" is irrelevant.
 * May 24, 2023 should be mentioned. There are some confusion aspects of how DeSantis announced his presidency; technicalities aside, it may be fine to just mention that he announced it. Still, I can't help but feel like omitting either the tweet or the Twitter Spaces discussion hollows out the lede.

Some aspects that could be covered or included:
 * The FEC filing hours before the tweet.
 * There is no defined structure for how campaign ledes should look like. MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID presents complications as to how to link to DeSantis seamlessly, and as such the "pro-bold" camp may need to argue that linking DeSantis' name is irrelevant. Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign is a good example of how to link such an article, but it trades structure for information (i.e. Clinton is not easily established within the first sentence). MOS:BOLDAVOID does not apply here, as this article could be worded in the format, The 2024 presidential campaign of Ron DeSantis was announced on May 24, 2023. This may be a discussion to come back to on Election Day.

If anyone has any thoughts, feel free to comment. Honorarily pinging BD2412 and Asperthrow to resolve this. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My personal preference is to include the bold in lieu of information on DeSantis' campaign. In the future, we could consider In 2024, Ron DeSantis ran unsuccessfully for president of the United States or In 2024, Ron DeSantis was elected president of the United States. Again, these examples omit his governorship in the first sentence, which other editors may disagree with. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The reversion to the change from the original version was a 1RR violation of a topic under Arbcom sanctions, which is reason enough for User:Asperthrow to be blocked, and perhaps topic-banned. I would also prefer to settle this through discussion, but the article must first be reverted back to its longstanding format, which is substantially more consistent with other articles in this series. I will allow the other editor to revert his own edit to this end before seeking administrative consequences. BD2412  T 04:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please seek administrative consequences, bearing in mind that you will not get them, given that my reverts were more than 24 hours apart. Asperthrow (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Articles falling under Arbcom sanctions are 1RR, not 3RR. There is no 24-hour rule for such articles. However, given that the article has not been tagged as falling within that ambit, you may not have known this. I will tag it accordingly now. BD2412  T 17:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I know administrators have the ability to set page restrictions under Arbcom sanctions, but I do not believe they apply until they are added by an admin. Additionally, an administrator who imposes a page restriction must add an editnotice to restricted pages using the standard template ( or a derived topic-specific template), which you have not done.
 * Also, an editor who was not aware that they were editing a designated contentious topic when making inappropriate edits should not receive any consequences other than a warning (see WP:AWARE). –– Formal Dude  (talk)  18:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe that it is fairly well-known by those who generally edit American electoral politics topics that they fall under the Arbcom restrictions governing the area as a whole. However, I have not sought or imposed any consequence in this case. My previous post in this discussion serves as the warning. BD2412  T 18:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but pages under WP:CT/AP do not automatically include page restrictions. You seemed to imply that this page was already under 1RR because it's an AP article, but that is not the case. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  19:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That was an oversight. American politics AE is now on this page, as it should have been from the beginning. BD2412  T 19:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I also have a problem with your application of these page restrictions, they do not seem reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. 1RR is quite strict and usually reserved for exceedingly unstable pages, I don't see that here at all. In fact, I don't think any page restrictions are needed here yet. They are likely to inhibit the editing process and general improvement of this page. Please reconsider setting 1RR and BRD restrictions. In my view, all that is really necessary at this point is to leave this page under a CT notice by adding to the talk banners. –– Formal Dude   (talk)  19:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a proposal from another editor just a few sections up to literally lock the page. Now, while that would be excessive at this time, we are not constrained to ignore developments in the real world in determining the appropriate level of caution to assign to a page falling squarely within restrictions. BRD is certainly appropriate here. BD2412  T 19:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That editor requested semi-protection which is entirely more lenient than the restrictions you imposed, and I'm not even sure that would be approved if requested at WP:RPP. The enforcement of contentious topics is not supposed to be preemptive. I again request you reconsider, otherwise I will have to submit an appeal. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  19:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, there is no question that high-profile campaigns for U.S. presidential elections fall within the Arbcom topic area of post-1992 United States politics. All articles clearly falling into this area are automatically within the ambit of the Arbcom restrictions. Those restrictions automatically come with the 1RR condition. This is not something that I have "imposed" on the article, this is merely the set of preexisting restrictions imposed by Arbcom, that I have acknowledged clearly apply to this article, as an article clearly falling within the topic. There is nothing to appeal, unless you plan to appeal the Arbcom determination that post-1992 United States politics is a contentious area. BD2412  T 20:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstanding. They do not automatically come with the 1RR condition, in fact the majority of pages under post-1992 AP do not have such a restriction. It is indeed something an admin has to impose. I'll be appealing shortly. –– Formal Dude   (talk)  20:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is currently a report involving this discussion at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  21:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Now that this has been settled, could we get back on track? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My original point was that this article should be consistent with others in the series. Now that I see that the others have been changed along the same lines, I have no objection to this one being structured in this way. BD2412  T 00:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Space between template and title
I think adding the space makes it easier to edit the article. David O. Johnson (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The space adds margin. There is virtually no difference in editing with or without the space. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)