Talk:Riikka Purra

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: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Riikka Purra.jpg

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Riikka Purra.jpg

Should we use Purra's own words?
I added, and User:Prolog deleted, a passage on Purra's words regarding the alleged sexual abuse of a 17-year-old girl, where she said that if the victim was part of the anarchist mob then hopefully she learned her lesson, and that the victim should take responsibility for the act as it was her choice to go drinking with mustalaiset (formerly the Finnish for word Roma, nowadays an ethnic slur.) I used her words on Scripta as a primary source with an accompanying English translation. Now, I agree that using a primary source here isn't great. I just think it's better than not using it. WP:BLP specifies that "All quotations and any material " must have a "reliable, published source." That's not a problem here, as the quote isn't challenged or likely to be challenged. The policy goes on to say that a living person's self-published material about themselves can only be used as a source if it's not unduly self-serving, doesn't involve claims about third parties, doesn't involve claims about events not directly related to the subject, there's no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, and the article's not based primarily on such sources. I think this source passes all five. (I wouldn't count Purra's words as a claim about a third party as they don't make factual claims about the abuse, only express her reaction to it.) The policy also states:"Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published . "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources. See below for our policy on self-published images." Now, in isolation that last line could be taken to mean nothing written by the subject of an article in an online discussion area could be used as a primary source in BLP. However, I think that's contradicted by "Never use self-published sources—including[…] websites, blogs, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published ." If everything written by the subject in an online discussion area was forbidden, there'd be no call to specify that social network posts, which fall under that category, aren't forbidden. This is, I think, supported by how WP:V's principles on self-published sources as sources on themselves specify that "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" as long as they meet the five principles above, and that "This policy also applies to material published by the source on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Reddit, and Facebook." Therefore, I'm taking the narrow interpretation that "readers" in "posts left by readers" refers to people who aren't the writer, and that therefore using Purra's own words is acceptable. Finally, covering this would improve the article and wouldn't do the subject dirty either legally or morally. --Kiz o r  19:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I removed all content cited to Scripta that I noticed. This prevents undue weight given to posts that haven't actually played a part in the controversy. It also prevents edit wars over which bits are important and which are not. Prolog (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * you're of course right that posts covered in secondary sources deserve more weight. I just don't think the weight due for this one is none at all. I think a briefer note would be appropriate. I included the quote and its translation in the cite to be on the safe side, so if those count towards weight and it's appropriate to do without them we should do so. And I've reviewed the things Purra wrote to Scripta and her noteworthy statements other than this one seem to have been covered by secondary sources, so I don't think citing Scripta would lead to edit wars over which ones to include. (Of course, it could lead to ones over what to say about them.) Also, was this a polite and appropriate way to notify you? I'm still pretty new to pinging. --Kiz o  r  19:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. It is good practice indeed. Be bold and make the changes you feel appropriate. Prolog (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 's original act was correct. has now picked up text from a primary source and decided it's part of the Mid July controversy. I don't know if it makes it any better to put the lengthy quote in the ref note. --J. Sketter (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Thank you for removing it from the Middle July 2023 subsection. I still do think that a statement like this from a high-ranking public servant known for controversial statements is noteworthy, though due less weight than noteworthy articles from noteworthy outlets on a noteworthy scandal. I'm trying it as a subsection. I don't know either if putting the lengthy quote in the ref note makes it better, so I'm leaving it out for now. --Kiz o r  10:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Deleted by Mnd5trm. What's up? --Kiz o  r  19:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)