Talk:Sanna Marin

Marko Marin

Is she related to the football player Marko Marin?--2003:EE:3F34:625D:AC69:778F:B1C1:8F76 (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Given he was born in Bosnia, rather unlikely! Culloty82 (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Political entry

I am having confusions regarding when Sanna Marin actually entered political race. Few English sources depict she entered politics at the age of 27 in 2012 but the Suomi Wikipedia says she contested in 2008 local elections and also elected as Vice President of Social Democratic Youth (Finland) in 2010. I really want clarifications about this because I added the fact that she entered politics in 2012 at the age of 27 according to Business Insider. Is Business Insider source reliable enough in this regard? Abishe (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I just found and added a BBC News article with more background on Marin's political career. Funcrunch (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Funcrunch for clearing my doubts and also would like to thank you for updating the article on a regular basis. Abishe (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

There was a profile on BBC Radio 4 just now which may have more details https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000cbvc ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billlion (talk • contribs) 19:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Confirmation

Is there any confirmation from the government that she has become prime minister? the Finnish wikipedia ( says Rinne is still prime minister for now Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

We don't have much access to Finnish politics in English language. Maybe a political crisis could have erupted. We have to wait for upcoming days. Abishe (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Abishe: I'd say this Helsinki Times article (in English) is definitive :-) Funcrunch (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Anyway we need to more sources. Now the article is having more English sources. Pity satisfied. Abishe (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Ethnicity

Is she an ethnic Swede? Her name could be either Finnish or Swedish, so not sure. --Augustine-ok (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

In her case it's a Finnish name, from Savonia. "She is not a Finland-Swede. The name is Savonian, from the father's side." (source: Suomen Kuvalehti) --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

pronunciation

The pronunciation guide seems to claim that the I in her last name is geminated (ˈmɑriːn) which seems odd. I haven't seen many Finnish-speaking journalists etc say it like that, and her surname is Finnish and follows Finnish phonetics (Marin, not Mariin). I'm not an expert though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.188.125 (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Sanna Marin Photo shot for trendi

Does anyone know which edition of the Trendi magazine Sanna Marin appeared in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.219.50 (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe it was either September or October 2020. Trillfendi (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Husband is a F1 driver?

It doesn't mention anything on his page, and they don't have the same first name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.46.215 (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe he is related to Kimi, but i remember to have read somewhere they are not.--82.128.136.247 (talk) 15:05, 10 July 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:

• Pääministeri Marin Berliinissä 19.2.2020 (49556308173).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Personal life/Controversies

The adding of (multiple) "partying" incidents imho goes straight against our BLP policy. There is a certain tendency even of reliable sources to kind of concentrate on these kind of events especially for the article's subject, with a tone that has a disparaging subtone. Therefore I have removed the info, and expect some discussion here on the talk-page about IF, and if yes, to what extent these incidents ought to be included. WP:BRD. Lectonar (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

no controversy, it's tittle-tattle, she danced at a party, big deal: WP:NOTNEWS Acousmana 19:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

No, there are suggestions of drugs being involved. She just publicly agreed to take a drugs test; that's not news? It would be even if she was a 3rd class pop star; she's an elected politician. Elmenhorster (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed.

I can not begin to imagine why this needs to be censored.

A Prime Minster taking a test that tests against cocaine, an event widely published in reputable media, somehow is being censored on Wikipedia.

Highly unusual behavior I am seeing here taking place on Wikipedia. 2A02:1811:2401:5E00:DC30:9FFF:74CF:DC54 (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You were unnecessarily fast with the removal and protection of the article. This is highly unusual behaviour on Wikipedia. If these facts, reported by mainstream media worldwide, were so insignificant, how come someone like you (an admin of the English Wikipedia) saw a need to get involved? Elmenhorster (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't protect the article, and the removal wasn't an admin action. Lectonar (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree with removal per WP:NOTNEWS. If something significant comes out of this (like an actual investigation into wrongdoing), then and only then should it be added. Right now, it's speculation based on a photo. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. This is abnormal behavior of censorship taking place in Wikipedia. 2A02:1811:2401:5E00:DC30:9FFF:74CF:DC54 (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning that she does party but without all the controversies connected with it. The only real controversy about it is the missed Covid test, which is already covered. This would also be the place to mention her being praised as the coolest politician in the world. Something like "Marin is known for her party lifestyle, often being seen at nightclubs and music festivals as late as 4 AM. This has prompted the Bild to choose her as the coolest politician in the world" Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

it's BS, we don't report on every bit of gossip about one individual or another, it's simply not of encyclopedic value. Acousmana 19:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

To me this reads like censorship. This is unusual for Wikipedia. This event was widely reported in the media, and needs to be included. 2A02:1811:2401:5E00:DC30:9FFF:74CF:DC54 (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I am the administrator who semi-protected the article, because of disruptive violations of the policy, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which states Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Complying with this policy is mandatory and non-negotiable. She goes to parties and dances. Some people do not like how she dances. This is gossip. It is tittle-tattle. It is a tempest in a teapot and a BLP policy violation. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper gossip page. Cullen328 (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

not censorship, and until evidence of "enduring notability" exists, not of encyclopedic merit. Acousmana 20:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You need evidence? This has been on the news around the world through Welt, Faz, BBC, Deutsche Welle, La Nación, El País, The Guardian, Le Monde, NYT, Washington Post, and so on and so forth. She took a drug test in order to prove the allegations against her are false. I know there's some bias and propaganda on Wikipedia, but this is ridiculous.

It is relevant because there are accusations against her, and because it has become a topic of debate within and out of Finland regarding the image a PM should show to the public in the current context. Professor Peter van Nostrand (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You are WAY out of line here censoring this page.

She literally went to the press herself with the statement she went to the party. And she went to the public saying she did a test on cocaine in front of cameras from major news outlets.

The fact this is being censored under the guise of "privacy" is crazy. You are way out of line. 2A02:1811:2401:5E00:DC30:9FFF:74CF:DC54 (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Privacy... this is around the world. A new section about these parties and accusations should be created with the corresponding references. There is already a lot of detailed information (from dubious sources) for other politicians, but here we are supposed to do some coverup for ideological reasons, it seems. Professor Peter van Nostrand (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

"tabloids"

News outlets that reported on this

-Associated Press

-Reuters

-BBC

-The Guardian

-Le Monde

-Le Figaro

-NY Times

-Washington Post

-ABC News

Sites that have censored this news

-Wikipedia 2A02:1811:2401:5E00:DC30:9FFF:74CF:DC54 (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

A woman (even those who run a country) going to a party and dancing isn’t news, at all. Wikipedia is not a gossip column. Leave that to Instagram. Trillfendi (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You all make it about going to parties. That's not the problem, but politicians from the opposition accused her of drug use, and as a result she took a drug test. I think the accusations are false, but hey, they happened and they are relevant. Why everybody talks about the dancing and party? That's the background of the story, but the important thing is what that alone unfolded: the accusations, that's what many are talking about. Professor Peter van Nostrand (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not really surprising that trivial gossip and invasion of people's privacy can travel around the world almost instantly these days. The article is only semi-protected. It can be edited by anyone with an account at least four days old and with at least ten edits. That is a low threshold. Other editors can propose policy compliant language here on the talk page. Be sure to read and thoroughly understand the policy language first. Anybody who objects to my semi-protection of the article can request that it be unprotected at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Cullen328 (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

UK prime minister Johnson lost his job due to partying. Was that invasion of his privacy by people who elected him too? Navalny's publishing Putin's hidden wealth - that too? 14.52.127.153 (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

No he lost popularity due to breaking the law, repeatedly. A law he himself had only recently enacted. It was the members of his own political party that removed him from office. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Utterly abysmal behavior from obviously biased Wikipedia admins, this website is becoming even more of a joke than it was several years ago. I've never encountered a more guarded response to a controversy as this one.2A00:23C6:229D:D301:D9C8:C834:C412:5F43 (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

what's "Utterly abysmal" is anon/single purpose accounts, and likely socks, using a Wikipedia BLP to cast aspersions. Acousmana 11:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Controversies and information about leaked videos

I have read throughout the discussion that some users refuse to add information regarding the recent incidents involving private parties of Marin and the accusations against her about the alleged use of drugs as well as questioning the image of a primer minister by opposition parties, among others. Other versions of Wikipedia already include information about this:

• Spanish
• German
• Finnish

If that is available in those versions, there is no reason to hide the information here, in English (the most important version of Wikipedia!).

The news is being covered by all major newspapers, portals and tv news around the world. As a matter of fact, it seems that the article is semiprotected just for the purpose of avoiding adding any information that would portray a negative or critical view of the prime minister. Criticism or controversy are often present in biographies of political leaders. However, regardless of personal interpretatins we are here to show what is being said publicly, by the media and the protagonists. It's not irrelevant that a renown politician took a drug test to dispel any accusation from the opposition. It is news today, and it will be history tomorrow, no matter how big or small it is. The parties may have been private, but became public and the prime minister made public declarations about the videos and accusations. As this is a topic of relevance I added the corresponding section of "Controversies" and the subsection for this topic. All with the corresponding sources (in Finnish, English, etc.). Professor Peter van Nostrand (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

English Wikipedia is a separate self-governing project with its own policies and guidelines. The decision about whether or not to include content here is entirely independent of decisions made on other language versions of Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Which does not justify the removal of controversial information of a political figure. Professor Peter van Nostrand (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it does. Speculation from social media is not encyclopedic content. The attempted edit is a violation of WP:BLP. Slywriter (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The info provided came from news sites: Washington Post, BBC, and several Finnish news sites. I didn't use "social media speculation". Where did I do that? Professor Peter van Nostrand (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

"There were speculations on social media that in the video the word ”jauhojengistä” (flour gang) could be heard" - This is not encyclopedic. End of story. Slywriter (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Shutting down discussions with "end of story" line is more Putin than Wikipedia. Respectfully. 14.52.127.153 (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

And what you're doing there is clearly WP:OR. If secondary sources provide adequate coverage, it is not up to you to interpret the primary sources on reliability. Coverage in reliable sources has been massive, and very arguably not even in a negative context with many of them pointing out how ridiculous this whole "controversy" is. On top of that, why would you include a opinionated mention of coverage by German newspaper Bild out of all things, but not this? 95.90.232.115 (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion re:recent controversy

I feel a brief, neutral-worded and BLP-compliant mention of the recent controversy should be included in the article, considering both the sizeable amount of media attention it has gotten (including in various reliable, international sources) and the fact that it has led to Marin taking a voluntary drug test (which makes this more than the routine tabloid gossip on politicians and drugs use, at least in my opinion).

On the other hand, I don't think a several-hundred-words paragraph, like several of the recent attempts were, is remotely warranted. (On that same notion, some of the other tabloid-esque stuff in regards to other controversies that currently are included in the article could in my view do with some paring down, but that's a second discussion)

Therefore I'd like to propose the following addition to the article:

In August 2022, leaked videos of Marin at a private party became the subject of Finnish and international media attention. After criticism from opposition members in Finnish parliament and speculation on drug use, Marin denied using narcotics and stated on August 19 that she has taken a drug test “for [her] own legal protection [...] in order to erase such doubts".

I'm entirely open to changes in exact wording or sources used, if anyone has any suggestions for how to word things better/source them better. AddWittyNameHere 02:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I support this, but think a further description of the video is warranted. Reading simply "leaked videos of Marin at a private party" seems to leave out some relevant information. What was she doing at the party for it to garner so much attention? Once that part is added (in a neutral POV of course), then I support its addition. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 02:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that part is really hard to summarize while remaining in neutral POV & avoiding over-focusing on specific allegations/rumors/speculations. I'd love some suggestions for wording, if you have any. AddWittyNameHere 03:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion at this time. Right now this is just gossip and has no encyclopedic value. As we have WP:NODEADLINE, we can take the long view and see where this story is in a week, month, year. Slywriter (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I feel it has gone beyond just gossip/no encyclopedic value as of Marin's announcement she has taken a voluntary drug test. All the same, I can certainly see the logic in the wait-and-see approach you expressed, too. So if consensus turns out to be "don't include, even in a brief neutral version", that's fine--there's something to be said for that stance too, even if it's not my preferred outcome (but is my second choice over lengthy inclusion). I'm mostly concerned with trying to ensure that if it gets included, it gets included in a way that fits an encyclopedia rather than a tabloid. AddWittyNameHere 06:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it has been been given enough press coverage (and Marin has also commented on it) to warrant a mention. Your suggestion is a good start, though I think the "speculation on drug use" needs more reliable sources. It sounds like something a tabloid would make up when there is little concrete evidence. Otherwise, this entire situation sounds like a repeat of the Obama tan suit controversy or that time someone dug up an old college video of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dancing. Shuipzv3 (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

not Partygate, and trying to secrete some mention of "drug use" into a BLP, without RS, is absurd. Acousmana 10:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Shuipzv3 and Acousmana: I'm more than happy to find one or more additional refs to further back up the existence of such speculation. The CNN ref at the end of the sentence was meant to cover that part as well (through Marin's quotes on it), but I can see how it would be better to reference that part more explicitly. I'll dig up some additional sources later today.

That said, Acousmana, “trying to secrete some mention of "drug use" into a BLP, without RS” strikes me as uncharitable when 1. I'm here looking for consensus & for people's opinions and suggestions on improving wording and sourcing before so much as attempting to edit any of it into the article and 2. I'm fairly clearly focused on the fact that those speculations drew an unusual level of response by national Finnish politicians & the subject of the speculations, not on whether or not there is any truth to them. (And my personal gut feeling is "not", fwiw) AddWittyNameHere 17:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Except speculation on drug use will never meet Wikipedia's policies on BLP. The number of sources repeating the speculation is irrelevant. Slywriter (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

To quote WP:BLP:

Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred.

I'm arguing that's exactly the case here: allegations exist. They are denied, but the allegations are mentioned in multiple major newspapers. There is a public scandal/backlash. Therefore, the allegations belong in the biography, stating such allegations occurred and were denied. (But not stating in Wikipedia's voice that there is any truth to them)

Because I'm most certainly not saying "we should say there was drug use". I'm saying "in my opinion, there's enough media attention/backlash/scandal centred around those allegations & denial thereof warrants inclusion".

We can certainly disagree on whether there is enough of a scandal it warrants inclusion, but denial that it could ever be appropriate to include is not actually in line with what our BLP policy says.

AddWittyNameHere 18:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

There are no allegations. The reporting is about social media speculation which is rumormongering. Rumors being spread widey does not change the fact that they are rumors. No named person is saying "she was on drugs at that party". Cullen328 (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Multiple reliable (and a heap of semi- and unreliable, of course) sources refer to them as allegations; Marin herself refers to them as allegations (assuming said reliable sources did not misquote her); and iirc, at least one of the politicians that called for her to take a voluntary drug test referred to them as allegations as well. Ergo, it's verifiable that these things, whether rumor, speculation or allegation by legal definition, certainly frequently are referred to as allegations.

That said, it's become clear there currently is at best no consensus for inclusion even in brief, neutral form, so I will hereby disengage from the discussion unless/until things change. AddWittyNameHere 18:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC) ETA: Not closing this section because 1. other people might want to keep discussing and 2. am obviously involved, but if any uninvolved parties feel it's best to hat this discussion, please go ahead.

From what I've gathered, the allegations of drug use comes from the party guests chanting something about "flour gang", with flour interpreted to mean cocaine. That's isn't exactly compelling proof of drug use. Shuipzv3 (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Why Marin is getting preferential treatment on Wikipedia?

By now it's quite established Wikipedia admins acted to censor this article. Is there a connection between Marin, or Finnish government, and Wikipedia that we do not know about? Marin is of the left, just like Wikipedia's US board (no Republicans, or former Republicans, there). Anything else? Anyone wants to do some digging? 14.52.127.153 (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no preferential treatment but instead the enforcement of well-established policy. The Board of the Wikimedia Foundation does not get involved in any way with the content of individual articles. Cullen328 (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

He's right, this is a clear case of politically incentivized censorship.

The arguments brought forth to censor this page make no sense.

1) The argument this was tabloid news and therefore doesn't belong on her page can easily be disproven. News sources from the BBC, Reuters, Le Figaro, AP, all reported extensively on this. This is not tabloid news at all.

2) The argument that this is not newsworthy is nonsense. Her page is filled with personal information that is a lot less newsworthy than this story. The fact she is a "vegetarian" is apparently newsworthy. But the moment news comes out that could hurt her political carreer, it is all-hans-on-deck to lock down the page.

This is political censorship, a dangerous precedent. 2A02:1811:2401:5E00:B88D:E35B:D9E3:1F (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I am the administrator who semi-protected the article based on policy. Wikipedia is not a news site and does not care what is newsworthy. We care only about what is encyclopedic. Several other administrators have reviewed and approved my action. A bunch of inexperienced editors who do not understand the policy are trying to add content based on social media speculation. Experienced editors are opposed. I would have taken exactly the same step no matter what political party was involved, as my editing history shows quite clearly. Cullen328 (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

A bunch of inexperienced editors who do not understand the policy are trying to add content based on social media speculation. Experienced editors are opposed. - Experienced editors should look up the "having one's head up one's posterior" idiom, maybe that will help clarify the misunderstanding. 109.79.93.120 (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Just look at their MO, my friend.

The aministrators say that it's not important that the "young woman" (argumentum ad misericordiam) goes to parties and dance. Nobody claims otherwise, but they insist on stressing that out so that the controversy surrounding the context of the actions are ignored.

Why the topic is controversial? Because of Finland's current situation amid the war in Ukraine, the threats from Russia, and the ongoing energy crisis in the region that is expected to be severe in the coming months. So, these recent photos/videos, etc. caused some uproar. It all started in social media and escalated to the government, including the following: drug test, questioning of her work as a PM, mocking, and criticism in general due to the perception that politiciand live in another world, while ordinary people have to adjust their budgets and have other concerns (this is what can be read from the Finnish press). Try to explain that to administrators who don't even live near the region we talk about, but say the topic is "irrelevant". You can't make this out! Professor Peter van Nostrand (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Why do you mean why, isn't it painfully obvious? She's young (I believe one of the youngest world leaders and the youngest woman in that position), a woman, good looking, liberal, vegetarian. She represents everything trendy/sexy or everything that has been underrepresented in the past. The only box she doesn't tick is her sexuality, but she does come from a rainbow family according to her own statements. She's the perfect poster child and she can't do no wrong... The woke camp couldn't come with a better profile even if they had a brainstorming about it. 109.79.93.120 (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Marin is definitely not “of the left”. What are you even talking about? Plus, editors are just following the rules Tankpiggy18 (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Her party is the Social Democrats. What is the left then, according to you? 211.185.22.117 (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

No reason to censor this information regardless of your position on the matter, it makes wikipedia seem even more left-leaning than it already is, which is why few people take it seriously. As for "not on the left," she is literally a social democrat party member, unless you think everybody has to be socialist/communist to be of the left, which is not true. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:D9C8:C834:C412:5F43 (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

If censorship is your argument, you have already lost. Slywriter (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

"This is political censorship" no it isn't, right now it's WP:NOTNEWS. This isn't Partygate. Acousmana 10:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

few people take it seriously. And yet we get billions of page views every month. Cullen328 (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Marin already had her exact equivalent of the Partygate months ago.

This is much worse - she essentially hosted an orgy at the PM's official residence. 211.185.22.117 (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Presidents of Belarus and Russia concur with you. There is no censorship whatsoever there, ever, and individuals thinking otherwise are promptly sent to the nearest psychiatric hospital for a "special recovery operation". 211.185.22.117 (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Dancing video

@Slywriter: what is your objection to this addition by Mooonswimmer? Levivich 17:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

There seems to have been a discussion regarding the matter. I seemed to have missed it, my bad for not checking the talk page. Mooonswimmer 17:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

There has been discussion about other write-ups, but your edit, at least to my eyes, satisfied all the concerns raised so far. (It was reliably sourced, not undue in length or detail, etc. etc.) I'm surprised it was reverted and don't understand why. Levivich 17:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

That Wikipedia is not a tabloid and has no obligation to cover speculation in the media. And that's all this is. There is no evidence of drug use to justify even paying minor attention to the accusation. And I can't see any reason that a leaked video of a woman dancing is WP:DUE. By covering, we are telling everyone that unfounded smears are justifiable for inclusion as long as you can make the smear go viral, validity of it be damned.

Now, my position will also soften once her drug test results are made public as the accusation can be properly parsed as founded or unfounded with that key information. Until then, protection of BLP and WP:NODEADLINE are damn good reasons to leave it out. Slywriter (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer but I don't think it has any basis in policy or guideline. We don't keep something out (if it's widely covered by RS, which this is) simply because it's salacious. And I don't see any speculation in the edit I linked. I guess it's time for an RFC. Levivich 19:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Social Media accused someone of drug use. Social media is not a reliable source. Social media does not become a reliable source by being washed through reliable sources, who do no fact-checking and repeat the gossip looking for click-bait. It's exactly what our policies stand for. Slywriter (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Social media is not the source being cited in that edit; it's BBC and NYTimes. Levivich 20:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate them showing that their reliability should be further questioned by running with a story that originated on social media without a shred of independent evidence. Anyway, feel free to start the RfC as there is zero chance you can convince me, at this time, a video of a woman dancing is WP:DUE and claims of drug use without evidence should be mentioned regardless of who prints it. As I said, in a week with the drug test results, my opinion likely changes as we can unequivocally state whether the acussations are true or false. That's far more responsible editing instead of letting an acussation hang out there. Slywriter (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Why does that matter? You're engaging in WP:OR. If reliable sources consider it noteworthy, it's not Wikipedia's job to question their primary sourcing. And if you feel like BBC and NYT are generally not reliable, I'd argue this is not the right place to address it. 95.90.232.115 (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

And yet we have WP:BLP, WP:DUE, WP:RFC and WP:ONUS. So no just because you can find a reliable source saying something doesn't mean it is automatically included in Wikipedia. And allowing a false accusation to be printed on Wikipedia would have been a fundamental failing of our BLP policies. Now we have more facts and can discuss the appropriate way to handle WP:GOSSIP turned news, which includes the editorial discretion to ignore the entire matter, albeit an unlikely outcome at this point. Slywriter (talk) 03:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Video RFCBEFORE

While I've seen a few drafts of specific language over the course of recent edits/discussion that I would support, I wonder if it's better to propose specific language in an RfC, or to ask a broader question along the lines of "should this content be included at all?" because it seems some editors don't think it should be included at all in any form. Thoughts on the best RfC question? Levivich 19:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps we should start with whether or not the content merits inclusion before moving on to the specifics. Mooonswimmer 23:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I can see that, though I look at the coverage (8x stories by The Independent [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], 5x by BBC [9] [10] [11] [12] [13], 5x The Guardian [14] [15] [16] [17] [18], 4x The Times [19] [20] [21], and this leading article: [22], 4x Reuters [23] [24] [25] [26], 3x Associated Press [27] [28] [29], 3x CNN [30] [31] [32], 2x NPR [33] [34], plus The Washington Post [35], The New York Times [36], NBC News [37], CBS News [38], etc.), and I don't understand how we could possibly omit this entire thing from the article while complying with WP:NPOV. Levivich 03:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Censorship is politically motivated.

The argument put forth for censoring the page by removing any reference to miss Sanna Marin her clubbing adventures and subsequent drug testing was defended by arguing it would conflict with certain editorial guidelines on Wikipedia. Claims it was tabloid news or simply not newsworthy.

Yet it is very clear that this censorship is selectively applied on Wikipedia and it reeks of politically motivated censorship.

A striking example of this selective censorship is the Wikipedia page of US football coach Urban Meyer, the page reads as follows:

"In early October, a video appeared to show Meyer inappropriately touching a woman who was not his wife while he was at his Columbus-area restaurant, Urban Meyer's Pint House. Meyer apologized to the team and personnel."

This recent event is quite similar to the events surrounding Miss Sanna Marin. In both cases a video surfaced on social media of them touching a person who was not their significant other at a venue. They both later went to the media acknowledging this event took place.

This event was added to Urban Meyer his page without any objection of Wikipedia editors. Yet a similar event was quickly censored on the page off political figure Sanna Marin.

Now, Miss Sanna Marin her story went much further, there was a suspicion she was under the influence of narcotics, and was subsequently tested on the presence of cocaine in a drug test after pressure from political opposition.

This is also not simply about a football coach, Sanna Marin is a person in a position of power, presiding over a population of 5 million people.

The fact this story about the football coach, which is much more a tabloid story, was allowed to remain on Wikipedia, but the story regarding Sanna Marin, which is a story that involves the potential use of narcotics, that holds political weight, was censored, shows clear politically motivated censorship at Wikipedia.

As an outsider without any editorial power, I have noticed Wikipedia is increasingly involved in political censorship and does not apply their own editorial rules consistently.

And I have to agree with a previous comment on this page that this invisible editorial hand shielding certain public figures is not just politically motivated, but shows a clear bias towards protecting politicians on the left of the political sphere, especially when it concerns female political figures.

In fact this editorial bias towards the political left taking place on Wikipedia has been shown in studies https://misq.umn.edu/do-experts-or-crowd-based-models-produce-more-bias-evidence-from-encyclopedia-britannica-and-wikipedia.html and it is in full display on this page. Aggressive and heavy-handed censorship where an individual with editorial powers has taken it upon himself to censor any mention of an event widely publicised by outlets like the BBC, Reuters, Figaro and the NY Times.

Not only is this an abusive way to use one's editorial powers, these heavy-handed editorial interventions on Wikipedia censoring pages of politicians, makes Wikipedia an increasingly unreliable source of information, especially when it comes to political topics and figures in the political sphere. This is not just my opinion, this is an opinion that is consistently shared among many. The trust in Wikipedia as a source of political information has all but eroded away. The irony that people with editorial powers on Wikipedia ask for reliable sources, when they themsmelves manipulate and censor pages to such an extent, has not escaped me. 2A02:1811:2401:5E00:4CC:B0D8:C17F:5AC5 (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia is inconsistent - it's made by many humans and is a work in progress. You and a couple of other new editors appear confused about some other things.

First, this article is not in a state of completion. No one should think that Wikipedia has been written already and we should all go home. There are several discussions on this page and probably elsewhere discussing what kind of story this is and how best to express it. Initial attempts were clumsy and in Wikipedia terms, unencyclopaedic, so we are taking a moment to step back and consider how to progress. This story is also clearly not yet over. We are currently in an interim period, where test results are pending and further developments will happen. At Wikipedia, we prefer to know things before writing about them. We are not breaking news or social media. We are not in a great rush.

Second. I've previously seen some politically motivated actions on some articles. This is not one of those occasions. The bias you think applies to this situation does not. The simple truth is that no regular editor knows anything about, nor is particularly interested in Finland politics. The overriding policy here is WP:BLP, which says that we need to get articles right. This is a 'remove-first' policy, particularly where defamatory allegations are involved.

I also want to correct another thing. As an outsider you actually do have some editing power, which is the power to propose and present arguments for content (ie changes to the text). I accept your ability to actually make the changes are slightly reduced temporarily due to the article's protection, but what you may notice is that regular editors with the power to change things are not really making the changes either. They are discussing on this page what should be written, how it should be written, and when to write it. You are wasting your powers by just whinging and imagining motivations. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

IP editor, propose policy compliant language or stop complaining. Cullen328 (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

IP, I had a look at Urban Meyer. What I saw was about the incident you describe is 'Jaguars owner Shahid Khan said that Meyer's behavior had been "inexcusable" and that Meyer "must regain our trust and respect".' which seems to have happened very shortly after the incident. I also see that Meyer was eventually fired by Khan. While there seems to have been a lot of other stuff that lead up to that including poor performance of the team, the firing statement explicitly mentioned the [39] "regaining our trust and respect" thing and ESPN's article on the firing also mentions the video [40]. As it stands we do briefly mention the video with Marin in our article along with her taking a drug test. If Marin is ousted as prime minister and the video or whatever other videos or photos are cited as a significant factor in the ousting, then sure we probably will have to cover it more. If one of the parties currently supporting the PM had come out with a statement saying they have told Marin that they feel her behaviour was unacceptable and she needs to regain their trust and respect, then we should also seriously considering adding more. But since none this has happened yet, and none of us have a WP:crystal ball, then it's entirely reasonable that we cover what we do in Meyer and what we do here. In one case, a guy was fired apparently in part because of the video with the person who I believe could likely fire them at will coming out with a statement very soon after the video highlighting their concerns; in the other a bunch of people made a lot of noise but there doesn't seem to have been any significant consequence as of yet. Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Negative drug test

Finnish PM Sanna Marin tests negative for drugs after party video leak Cullen328 (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone still think this content should be excluded from the article? Levivich 20:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Which content, Levivich? Do you mean that many sources echoed and parroted utterly unfounded and completely unsubstantiated social media rumors, or that a video of her dancing at a party was leaked? Do other women actually dance in Finland or is she she only one who dances? Or maybe you want to elaborate on the unconfirmed and speculative discussion of the Finnish use of the word "flour" in the leaked video, which many people call imaginary and others were convinced was evidence of misconduct, and all the bizarre innuendo that followed that. Yes, please draft some NPOV language about this tempest in a teapot, and explain in detail why it is encyclopedic. Cullen328 (talk) 06:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Which content? A summary of the 38 articles from a dozen top RSes that I posted above at #Video RFCBEFORE. Although it's probably better to just pick the best three that were published today and summarize those. Levivich 06:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there a proposal compliant with WP:DUE and WP:10YEARTEST? Is there a WP:RS which shows the significance of the proposed text? That is, is the incident ephemeral gossip? If not, how has it changed Marin's life or her political fortunes? Johnuniq (talk) 07:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Here's an idea. Let's ignore all rules as this bureaucracy is preventing us from improving Wikipedia. The 10 year test would mean most content on Wikipedia would be removed. X-Editor (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't waste your time engaging with sealioning. Levivich 15:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

POV pushing? Everyone has a point of view to push. That's like complaining that every human breathes. This has turned into a bureaucratic nightmare. X-Editor (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Personally I believe there is some content to be had here. As I mentioned elsewhere, this is not so much a drugs scandal or a party story as it is about expanding on Marin's profile, her attitude, and the context she's working in (think AOC's dance moves which we do write about). What needs to happen though, is someone needs to actually propose some options for the actual text. I would suggest the previous discussions are reset into a new section with some solid proposals. I'd also suggest anything mentioning 'flour' is a non-starter. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this. Earlier I had asked whether it should be included, but after doing and posting some research, I'm personally past spending any more time discussing "whether" and I'm on to "how". I will take a stab at writing something up later and encourage others to do the same. Levivich 15:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is my proposal for adding the controversy: "In August 2022, videos of Marin partying and dancing in a private apartment in Helsinki became public. The case was reported in several European media outlets as well as in the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Argentina, among others internationally. Marin was not on vacation when the videos were shot, and no replacement had been appointed. On August 19, Marin had undergone a drug test and tested negative on August 22." It only includes the most important details and excludes social media gossip. X-Editor (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Almost support, but I think we should at minimum clarify this was a voluntary drug test, because that's a distinction that matters quite a bit. If that's changed, I can support.

That said, while I can support then, there is a lack of logical connection in the proposal between "partying videos in media" and "Marin takes a drug test and tests negative". I'd prefer (but can support without as long as the voluntary nature of the drug test is clarified), a brief additional clause at least somewhat giving that context. Perhaps best to simply quote what Marin had to say about it herself to avoid repeating social media speculation and such, e.g. "On August 19, Marin underwent a voluntary drug test after what she considered "serious allegations in the public domain" regarding drug use, and tested negative on August 22. AddWittyNameHere 16:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Here's a slightly modified version with her clarifying why she took the drug test: "Here is my proposal for adding the controversy: "In August 2022, videos of Marin partying and dancing in a private apartment in Helsinki became public. The case was reported in several European media outlets as well as in the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Argentina, among others internationally. Marin was not on vacation when the videos were shot, and no replacement had been appointed. On August 19, Marin had undergone a drug test "for my own legal protection and to clear up any doubts" and tested negative on August 22." X-Editor (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

That's too WP:SYNTH-y in my view: meaning, it strings together different details from different sources, like stitching together a quilt. I prefer a very different approach: instead of the "quilt" approach (Fact A from Source A, Fact B from Source B, etc.), I like the "overlap" approach, where we report on those details that are reported by multiple, independent sources (e.g., Fact A, B, and C, each one verified by Sources D, E, and F). To me, that's how you know something is significant enough (WP:DUE) for inclusion: if the same detail is reported in multiple RSes.

I haven't done the "which details are reported by all/most of these RSes" analysis yet, but I think the RSes that we should look at are: Reuters Aug 22, BBC Aug 22, CNN Aug 22, NPR Aug 22, Guardian Aug 22, and Independent Aug 22, which are the most-reliable, most-recent, non-paywalled, English-language sources about this that I can find. If a detail is in all six (or most), it should be in the article, IMO. Levivich 16:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

"The case was reported..." what case? the case of a woman dancing in her downtime?

"reported in several European media outlets as well as..." this is OR editorializing unless there is a secondary that states same.

"Marin was not on vacation... eh? seriously?

"On August 19, Marin had undergone a..." voluntarily elected to take the test. Acousmana 17:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

1. As far as reliable sources go, mostly the case of the first highly critical, later highly divisive response to the leaked videos (which themselves are, indeed, of a woman dancing in her downtime). (Should that response to those videos have existed? Personal opinion: ab-so-lutely not, it's overblown and largely motivated by other matters than genuine concern. But even though the response shouldn't have happened, it did, and whether or not it belongs in the article is dependent on a lot of things--but whether the response itself was right or justified isn't one of them.) Less reliable sources, yes, absolutely reported on the videos themselves. Could do with clarification, though.

2. I'm reasonably sure I've seen secondary sources list multiple European media outlets that have responded while explicitly mentioning the countries those outlets are from. Summarizing that as "several European media outlets" is paraphrasing, not OR. (this YLE article comes to mind, but I'm fairly sure I've seen others as well. Can go digging if needed, but I don't think it's necessary to separately mention European media outlets and other foreign outlets anyway. We could just as easily sum the entirety of non-Finnish media up as "international media", as plenty of sources have done. We might even be able to pare it down entirely, I think.

3. Part of the whole controversy, but yes, could be left out easily because as is, it adds little, and adding the needed context would likely devolve into repetitions of social media gossip.

4. Agree, or "took a voluntary drug test", or similar wording, but the voluntary part should not be left out.

Proposal:

In August 2022, videos of Marin partying and dancing in a private apartment in Helsinki became public, and went viral. In response to what Marin called "serious allegations in the public domain" regarding drug use, she took a voluntary drug test on August 19 "for [her] own legal protection [and] to clear up any doubts" and tested negative.

AddWittyNameHere 20:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

That wording looks good to me, see next section for further suggestions, could add this contribution there too. Acousmana 20:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done: copied to next section. Further comments on this proposal should be added there, to avoid splitting the conversation unnecessarily. AddWittyNameHere 18:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• a fake controversy, stoked by the Finnish far-right. Ultimately it's a non-issue, nothing happened, it's a non-event, noteworthy only in terms of demonstrating that bullshit can quickly gain traction if it involves a female head of state who likes to dance in her free time. A fake "scandal" originating in a gossip magazine, it's tittle-tattle, we should not be presenting it as a "controversy." Acousmana 16:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The first article is an opinion piece. The second article mentions the far-right only in passing in the context of a specific claim about the party. Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS either. X-Editor (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not here to frame bullshit as controversy, which is what you appear to want to do. Acousmana 16:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's not devolve this conversation into (more) personal attacks, accusations of bad motives, and such. Levivich 16:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I actually agree this is not a controversy, and I agree with some of your objections to this proposed text. It is not framed well, IMO. However, this does not make it non-includable. Politicians including the leader of the opposition was asking for, and got, a drug test. How often does that happen? People are talking about double standards and sexism in politics.[41] People around the world are posting dancing videos to show solidarity with Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin.[42] As I said above, this is something more than a drug or partying controversy. Even bullshit can be notable. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Proposed addition

In August 2022, video clips of Marin dancing at a party with friends, including Finnish celebrities, were published by international media. Marin's political opponents said the videos showed inappropriate behavior that called Marin's maturity and judgment into question, with some publically demanding that Marin take a drug test. Marin said she was aware of being filmed but that the videos were intended to remain private. She said she drank a moderate amount of alcohol at the party but remained unimpaired, and denied using any drugs or being aware of any drug use at the party. To dispel the accusations, Marin took a drug test at her own expense; the test results were negative. In a show of support, women around the world posted videos online of themselves dancing.

References

This is probably too long and overcited but I'm sure someone who is better at drafting prose than I am could condense it into something better, but it's a start. Levivich 18:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

were published by international media incorrect, published by celebrity gossip mag Seiska, international reporting followed, multiple sources detail Seiska as the source.

In August 2022, video footage of Marin dancing at a private party was published by Finnish celebrity gossip mag Seiska. A number of Marin's political opponents suggested her behavior was inappropriate and demands for a drug test to be taken followed. She stated she was aware of the filming but believed it would remain private. Marin indicated she had consumed a moderate quantity of alcohol but had remained unimpaired. She also rejected accusations of drug use and to dispel further allegations took a drug test; the results of which were negative. In a show of solidarity, women around the world posted videos online of themselves dancing.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Acousmana (talk • contribs)

Absent the alternative of ignoring the gossip, this seems to be on the right path. Slywriter (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

published by Finnish celebrity gossip mag Seiska fails verification with those citations: none of the sources cited mention Seiska, I think that means Seiska is not WP:DUE for inclusion. The cited Reuters source said Video clips of Marin, 36, at a party with Finnish celebrities began circulating on social media last week and they were soon published by several media outlets in Finland and abroad.. The Independent source said The first video, which appears to be from Instagram Stories.... NPR said circulated on the internet, CNN leaked to the media... several said "leaked" in some form. I think we can just say "leaked online" or some more encyclopedic variation of that. I also think it's better to be specific and state it was two video clips or two short videos or just two videos, rather than the vaguer video footage. Otherwise I support the rest of it, thanks. Levivich 20:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

yes, none of those sources cite Seiska as source (which is an error on my part, rag is actually Iltalehti - Seiska published a second video), assumption was we would add what's need to support the assertion. Writing "published by international media" and bunging a string of cites after it to indicate 'a bunch of international media' is problematic. Acousmana 20:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Per Acousmana's suggestion, adding my proposal from one section above here as well so we have them in one place:

In August 2022, videos of Marin partying and dancing in a private apartment in Helsinki became public, and went viral. In response to what Marin called "serious allegations in the public domain" regarding drug use, she took a voluntary drug test on August 19 "for [her] own legal protection [and] to clear up any doubts" and tested negative.

References

Basically approaching the same issue from the other direction: perhaps too short, but we can always discuss what--if anything--should by consensus (with RS) be added. AddWittyNameHere 23:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support adding this proposal by AddyWittyNameHere. It is rid of all subjective commentaries and is based on facts. 103.249.233.6 (talk) 05:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Also support adding the proposal by AddyWittyNameHere. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  I love it. So, the English Wikipedia is still trying to find out how to add the controversial information about the PM. The original "garbage" that I published is an exact translation from the Finnish version of Wikipedia (does that mean they publish garbage over there?). Well, I'm glad the info will be published at some point. As for some administrators here, they need to step aside and let others do the job on this article. Their bias and reluctancy to admit they're not familiar with the relevance of these topics in Finland is very clear. Professor Peter van Nostrand (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  Professor Peter van Nostrand, while I personally feel an addition could have been added earlier—as is evident from my comments earlier on this talk page—history has given us plenty of reason to be particularly careful when adding controversial content to a BLP article and to get it right the first time (or at least, the first time it stays within an article for any reasonable length of time). Can that be frustrating sometimes? Sure. Does that mean occasionally lagging a bit behind the facts? Absolutely.

  But in case of BLPs, there's generally much less potential harm done by us not yet including some information while we deliberate on how to include it, than by adding everything first and then finding out and arguing about parts that should be removed later, while displaying potentially problematic information to all readers of the article in the mean time.

  "Inclusion eventually" is more in line with the purpose of an encyclopedia, anyway: we're about the mid-long term view of a subject. A week or two isn't so long to take to include information, for an encyclopedia. Anyone who's relying on us to bring the most immediate, up-to-date information is doing so at their own risk, because we aren't, haven't ever been, and haven't ever claimed to be, a newspaper. AddWittyNameHere 18:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Abstain. However, we need to be careful. In the latest wording, which I see has now been added, I see a hole making it read as though the mere fact that she was partying and dancing has led to allegations of drug use. Partying and dancing are normal human behaviours, and do not usually involve the use of drugs (besides alcohol in many cases). There must be a reason for the allegations, which may be either pure political motivation or a genuine concern due to her behaviour. So if we are going to cover this, I think we need to cover this hole somehow. But of course, we need reliable sources to back up whatever we say. — Smjg (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

reason? smear campaign led by gutter press and far-right agitators. Acousmana 17:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

New controversies published by global media today

1. Photos of topless same-sex kissing at prime minister's residence: https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/girls-pictured-kissing-topless-at-finland-prime-ministers-boozy-bash-identified/news-story/4e33cf9a1f5cf0f98a1b4d8db36cee6d

2. Prime minister "grinding on" a former Miss Finland at a club

3. Finnish pop star, 8 years PM's junior, seen possibly kissing her in previously-published videos, denies he has an inappropriate relationship with her

4. Sound expert for a major Finnish newspaper confirms drugs phrase "flour gang" was used in the previously published video.

I would suggest admins do NOT delete this discussion thread and instead care to explain how this contradicts Wikipedia policies, and which.

Any reasons why all or some of the above should not be part of Marin's Wikipedia page? The PM's residence, after all, is paid for by the taxpayer... 211.185.22.117 (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems to me this warrants a dedicated criticisms/controversies sections. Just because her supporters dismiss controversies as sexism or witch hunting doesn't mean the controversy doesn't exist. 109.78.49.131 (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

These things require reliable sources covering them. The whole topic of drug use and that whole dancing "controversy" is already being covered in the discussion above.

Besides that, Wikipedia is not a news site. That whole topless kiss situation only really came forward today I believe, but seems indeed to be receiving some coverage today: 1, 2. I'd suggest to wait and see. 95.90.232.115 (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Wait and see what? Seems there isn't much you can't get away with these days if you are a woman in a position of power, especially if you happen to be young and good looking.109.78.49.131 (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Without comment as to the merits of your assertion (this is not the place to get into that debate), Wikipedia's function is not 'ensuring people don't get away with things', or anything remotely in the vicinity of that. This is not a place to right great wrongs, nor a place to report every single thing that has ever appeared in a newspaper or tabloid, it's an encyclopedia—and yes, that sometimes means wait and see what reliable sources have to say about it over a slightly longer course of time.

If you feel said reliable sources are letting people get away with things, write a letter to their editors; if on the other hand you feel there are reliable sources giving significant attention to matters not included in the article, present said sources here on the talk page so they can actually be discussed for possible inclusion. (To hopefully get ahead of potential problems: tabloids and random people on social media are not considered reliable sources.) AddWittyNameHere 23:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I know it's an encyclopedia, but it strikes me (and apparently I'm far from being the only one) how quickly reviewers can decide on the fly what constitutes encyclopedic content and what not (not just in terms of fulfilling certain criteria, but also in terms of relevance). I challenge anyone to pick 5 bios randomly and not stumble upon the most mundane of details. Yes, mundane, that's what distinguished Wikipedia from the likes of Britannica from day one (and I have no affiliation with the latter). Seems to me other "criteria" are at work here, lest we cast any negative light on politicians representing a traditionally underrepresented category (such as being exceptionally young or being a woman) 109.78.49.131 (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, one can decide quickly on the fly to keep something out for now. That doesn't mean "it's decided that it's not going to be in there, ever", nor "it's decided that this topic is inherently unencyclopedic/irrelevant". It just means "after we (English Wikipedia) fucked up multiple times, we've learnt that when it comes to living people, temporarily lacking content generally does far less harm than having problematic content included" and sometimes it's best if we pause, take a step back and take a good look at what the reliable sources are/aren't saying and how much attention they are paying to a particular topic first, and then, if deemed fit for inclusion based on those sources, a bit of time to think and discuss how to word it in a way that any claims made are actually backed up by such sources.

The issue is not whether we cast any negative light on the person, per say. (Rampant promotional language regularly gets axed from mainspace as well.) Well-sourced, relevant negative information absolutely gets added into biographies of living people. But there is a higher bar for inclusion than with many other topics, because casting a negative light on a person can do genuine harm if it turns out to be a hoax, a misinterpretation of sources, unsourced gossip, etc., and this has happened before (see e.g. the Siegenthaler incident), so these days we're all a bit more aware it needs to be well-supported by reliable sources than we used to be in the old days. (A similar thing goes for medical claims, so it's not just biographies being singled out for special care being taken--it's "areas where we used to regularly fuck up before special rules were made")

Additionally, while there absolutely are mundane details in a lot of articles, not all mundane details are equal: some are mundane-but-relevant, others are mundane-and-irrelevant. (Additionally, our standards for what is relevant have gotten more stringent through the years, but that doesn't mean articles created in the past necessarily all adhere to current standards. Wikipedia is, as always, a work in progress.)

As for whether there is more of an effort made on politicians from traditionally under-represented groups? Eh. There is more of an effort being made on articles that are the target of rampant speculation, unsubstantiated claims, or repeated attempts at inclusion of highly controversial content not backed up by reliable sources. If that means a disproportionately high percentage of those are politicians of traditionally under-represented groups, that mainly says something about the frequency with which they become subject of such speculation/wild claims/unsourced controversy. (Though fwiw, the same certainly happens on articles about people from traditionally over-represented groups too. E.g. the whole Epstein matter, where a lot of gutter press speculated about who was involved, and a lot of over-eager folks attempted to repeat any such claims on Wikipedia. That certainly involved a lot of articles on people from traditionally over-represented groups.)

AddWittyNameHere 15:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Reputable press avoided reporting on Epstein and tip-toed around the subject.

in Marin’s case it is not gutter press, as with Epstein, but broadsheet media from the left and centre (not aware of any broadsheet right wing media in English, worldwide, these days). 61.80.158.4 (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Then be specific about what content you feel should be in the article, and which exact reliable source backs it up, instead of throwing around shade as you did in the section below. We can discuss whether the content is, indeed, backed up by the sources, and whether it is relevant to the article, and all that other stuff only when there is actual content proposed and an actual source to evaluate. AddWittyNameHere 04:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

If BBC is not a reputable source (e.g. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62679034), then please explain to the rest of us what one is. I doubt the same criteria would have applied in Johnson's or Trump's case. Again, one cannot claim it's a non-existent or unsourced controversy just because the subject's supporters declare it doesn't bother them. And speaking of Trump or Johnson, it's also hard to imagine any criticism leveled at them (or controversy surrounding them) being dismissed on grounds of sexism/misandry or "depriving men of power". So is it really the case of wait and see for reliable sources to report, or wait and see for the controversy to hopefully die down? 109.78.49.131 (talk) 12:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, there we *finally* have a source. Now how about actually specifying what information from that source you feel should be in the article that is not currently there? Because, let me repeat once more: we cannot discuss a proposed addition to the article when you haven't proposed anything. AddWittyNameHere 12:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

New revision, Bilderberg

While the recent controversy was about Marin partying inappropriately at the taxpayer-funded official residence, the current article now conveniently only reflects she has been partying at a private apartment. No censorship here, then, and probably no connection to previous conclusions regarding Marin’s inappropriate use of taxpayer funds for meal expenses at the same official residence.

Whitewashing Marin’s biography is probably not at all related to her being on the official guest list of the Bilderberg conference this summer. 61.80.158.4 (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Should we add Marin’s Bilderberg and WEF Young Global Leader selection as significant achievements to her biography? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.80.158.4 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The time for blasting this talk page with unfounded complaints about whitewashing and non-actionable suggestions about a new "controversy" has passed. Either focus on suggestions regarding particular content and policy, or find another topic to edit. That means discussing the actual words to be added or removed from the article. You will be blocked from this page if the shotgun approach continues. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

oh, she's a Bilderberger, right yeah, of course, bloody NWO types eh? any reptile footage yet? Acousmana 16:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

BBC and "conceding" elections

Obviously BBC is usually an outstanding source, but using it to report WP:NEWS for other countries' elections can be problematic. The British political system with its first past the post (same as the US and Canada) makes election night and "conceding" elections important. Not so in most other European countries. It's entirely possible that the largest party ends up in opposition (currently the case in Sweden, for example). So even though BBC might make a point of conceding, driven by a UK-centric understanding, using such language for a Finnish election is misleading and inaccurate. Jeppiz (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Finnish media refer to SDP as one of the election winners as they gained seats, even though they likely will lose the premiership. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 06:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)