Talk:Darren Bailey

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• DarrenBailey.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• DarrenBailey.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Darren Bailey.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

can we add a non copyrighted image of Bailey? MrMemer223 (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Darren Bailey Far Right

In no way does Darren Bailey meet the qualification of far right it seems pretty obvious the user ser! Is doing this purely out of political bias. If a article use far right with out any basis to there claims it should not be used. Uinko (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Uinko: First of all, please cease and desist with the personal attacks. Per WP:NPA and WP:AGF, casting aspersions of “political biases” isn’t tolerated on Wikipedia. For the record, I have no affiliation to any political party and edit entirely based on what reliable sources say. The reliable sources all refer to Bailey as far-right, and therefore this is what’s used on Wikipedia. Your own assessment of whether he’s far right or not is immaterial. I invite you to self-revert. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 08:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Your "sources" for far-right identification are themselves opinions by generally left leaning people. There is no authoritative source so to speak on these matters. A more accurate description would be right leaning, or conservative, but he is not a goose stepping so and so. Please! 2603:300A:1516:900:85F5:2D4A:B693:A211 (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Explain how he is far right Uinko (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Uinko: It’s not up to me to explain it to you. One of Wikipedia’s core policies is WP:NOR, which means no original research - so it doesn’t matter what you or I think constitutes far-right. What goes on Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources, and the vast majority of these as demonstrated in the content you removed. I again invite you to self-revert. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 09:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I dont want to keep doing this please quit adding it back there are many "reliable" sources that use discriptions not seen as necessary to add, i am not the only one who finds this addiction unnecessary as there are others who have contended this also. You are the only one insisting on this as a necessary description. I want to keep this page unbiased. Uinko (talk) 09:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

If there are many other sources with descriptions, deal with them separately because that argument under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn’t grounded in Wikipedia policy. Other editors have restored the far-right label, but even so, consensus isn’t determined by the number of people saying one thing versus another. Your arguments aren’t grounded in Wikipedia policy. See WP:NOTAVOTE. The only reason I haven’t restored the cited content you removed is because of the WP:3RR, hence why I’m inviting you to revert. As for the allegation of “bias”, this is your second personal attack against me in the space of about two hours. I’ll ask you again to cease with them. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 09:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:V, all sources that are unverifiable must be removed. The majority of the sources listed have access restrictions and cannot be verified by all users. Out of most of the remaining verifiable sources, there are quality concerns as they are worded as editorials. The only verifiable and fact-based source remaining is the article by Reuters. All sources should be deleted except Reuters. Joshyak12 (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

can we add a non copyrighted image of Bailey?

or at least get a screenshot of him from a video MrMemer223 (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

My image has recently been added by user Ser! Cobiblair (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Image of Darren Bailey available, but can't edit.

File:Darren Bailey at a 2022 Campaign Event.jpg

This is my non-copywrited imaged for Bailey. I took it myself. I have added it to the election page, but can't add it here since I am not yet an established user. I encourage someone who is to add it for me. Cobiblair (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to "Ser!" for adding the image. Cobiblair (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

categorization as "election denier"

Recently I added Category:Election deniers to this article, but I have just now removed that. It is supported in the article that he has engaged in election denial (asserting falsely that a proven-to-be-legit election was fraudulent), but it seems not established that his involvement in this type of conspiracy theory rises to the level of the category being a "defining characteristic". See discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 12 on "Category:American election deniers". This may be revisited if editor think it should be applied after all, perhaps with pings to myself and others at the Categories for discussion page. thanks, --Doncram (talk) 03:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Your “extreme-leftist-communist” view point is made clear when you use terms like “far”-right.

Your use of the term “far”-right shows just how “far”-left your bias has gone. Do you label Prikster or Lightfoot as “far-left”? Either you are all communists at Wikipedia unable to see past your own delusions to recognize any form of objective reality, or you all work for the DNC. Suggest you have the gumption to remove the term “far” from all political figures. There was that great meme showing that right hasn’t moved, but left kept moving further and further left to point where centrists are more aligned to the political right because the left has completely lost its mind in every topic. 98.253.218.240 (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree completely 66.116.49.115 (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Darren Bailey labeled as far right/ NPOV dispute

I am responding to the fact that you labeled Darren Bailey as a far right yet, you don’t have Illhan Omar to far left with her more radical beliefs. Not even Ralph Northam, who would allow abortion up to 9 months was labeled as far left. Now we see that Wikipedia is biased and doesn’t put out factual information. 207.113.162.27 (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Something that subjective does NOT belong in the first sentence. What I see here is begging the question. There are hundreds of articles about Darren Bailey, most of them not labeling him like that. This is WP:UNDUE, and since it’s a very current topic right now, perhaps the NPOV label is necessary.

The body of the article can deal with the opinions of him. But this is current, so we need an NPOV tag ASAP if this keeps going back and forth. Pacificus (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I've now added the above-mentioned NPOV tag. Subjective pejoratives do not belong in the lede, especially the lead sentence! There are hundreds of articles on Darren Bailey, most of which don't use that pejorative. This will influence Tuesday's election, because it's the first Google result.

The "far-right" label is already repeated in the lede of a section of the article. It has no business in the lead sentence. Pacificus (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

There's no "special case" here at all. The vast majority of reliable sources describe Bailey as being on the far-right in journalistic voice. Your argument of this descriptor not belonging in the lede is incorrect as this is the same as other articles of those who are described widely as far-right politicians, e.g. Marjorie Taylor Greene. NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content, and removal of this would provide false balance. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

None of this changes the fact that the descriptor is extremely well-sourced and prominently included in most articles, so there is no reason to remove it from the lede. As always, the editors opposed to this fail to reference any explicit Wikipedia policy, but just complain about vague notions of "bias" and whataboutism. The term should absolutely stay in. Cpotisch (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)