Talk:Fergie Chambers
Add topic| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. The entire article relates to the following contentious topics:
The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
The Free Press source
[edit]@David Gerard and other interested editors. As I mentioned in my edit summary, I would read that RSN discussion as "no consensus". That doesn't mean it needs to be removed from BLPs, particularly as the Free Press source is not used for controversial claims or challenged material, and is backed up by other sources that are clearly reliable. While I don't think it's essential to include this particular source, I don't think it is essential to remove it, either, and it provides a journalistic profile of Chambers which we are able to pull several useful encyclopedic details from for our article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Literally the first response is "absolutely not". In any case, you shouldn't be looking for excuses to add anything other than reliable sources to a WP:BLP, and certainly not just for colour. Why are you so very keen to include this particular source? - David Gerard (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think we both know that "one person's opinion" =/= "consensus", even if they post it earliest. As I said above, I don't think it's essential to include the Free Press source, and I started this talk page section to discuss the source rather than edit warring about it on the page. No need to cast aspersions about my motives. If the source stays out, it's hardly a tragedy. Mother Jones, the most extensively used source for this article, is considered reliable but clearly biased per WP:RSN - do you have concerns about that source as well, or is that fine per your reading of WP:BLP? —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- We're not talking about Mother Jones, but about The Free Press, an opinion site specifically created not to be a conventional NEWSORG per past RSN discussion - before that thread these two - David Gerard (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- The second discussion you've linked happened more than a year ago not long after the FP had been founded. Now we have much more information about it and naturally the latest discussion which deals specifically with this article (per WP:RS the reliability depends on context) has much greater weight than the other ones. Alaexis¿question? 21:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. @David Gerard, I'm asking your opinion on Mother Jones because you have a lot of experience thinking through reliable sources and obviously are concerned about the types of sources used in BLPs. Personally, I think both it and this Free Press article are fine to be used in this article as they were. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not particularly interested in the use or not of Mother Jones, this discussion is about FP. Whataboutery sounds like you're unsure of your case - David Gerard (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I was genuinely asking - I'm really not trying to sneak a bad source into this article, I'm trying to learn about how our BLP policy handles sources that are reliable but biased, or where the consensus is unclear. I think it's clear from the second paragraph at WP:BLP that if the FP source were used to support contentious material, it would be right to remove it immediately. But in this article, the FP source was only used for basic biographical details. Those details are covered elsewhere, which is why I said in my very first comment that it is not essential that the FP source be used. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not particularly interested in the use or not of Mother Jones, this discussion is about FP. Whataboutery sounds like you're unsure of your case - David Gerard (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. @David Gerard, I'm asking your opinion on Mother Jones because you have a lot of experience thinking through reliable sources and obviously are concerned about the types of sources used in BLPs. Personally, I think both it and this Free Press article are fine to be used in this article as they were. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- The second discussion you've linked happened more than a year ago not long after the FP had been founded. Now we have much more information about it and naturally the latest discussion which deals specifically with this article (per WP:RS the reliability depends on context) has much greater weight than the other ones. Alaexis¿question? 21:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- We're not talking about Mother Jones, but about The Free Press, an opinion site specifically created not to be a conventional NEWSORG per past RSN discussion - before that thread these two - David Gerard (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think we both know that "one person's opinion" =/= "consensus", even if they post it earliest. As I said above, I don't think it's essential to include the Free Press source, and I started this talk page section to discuss the source rather than edit warring about it on the page. No need to cast aspersions about my motives. If the source stays out, it's hardly a tragedy. Mother Jones, the most extensively used source for this article, is considered reliable but clearly biased per WP:RSN - do you have concerns about that source as well, or is that fine per your reading of WP:BLP? —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
==
Babochki collective
[edit]As an unverified editor, I cannot edit the protected page, but I think it is worth adding relevant context to the name of the investment vehicle mentioned in this article - Babochki Collective. While it is true that "Babochki" means "Butterflies" in Russian, the likelier reference that Fergie had was the Russian prison-slang term for "money", "babki" - and "Babochki" is simply the diminutive, endearing variant of that word. Given Fergie Chambers' admiration of modern Russian culture, that wordplay is much more likely what he had in mind when naming his fund. Siptica (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2026 (UTC)