Talk:Supreme Court of Finland convicts individuals and institutions involved in writing and publishing pamphlet for inciting hatred against gays and lesbians

Headline question

I questioned the use of the term "crimes against humanity" in the headline and lead paragraph based on the following:

I would note that one of the cited sources, this article from The Guardian, begins with the sentence, "A Finnish member of parliament has been found guilty by the country’s supreme court of inciting hatred after claiming that homosexuality was a 'developmental disorder', in a conviction that prompted criticism from far-right government ministers." That source doesn't even mention the term "crimes against humanity" at all. Another cited article from The Independent doesn't mention "crimes against humanity", either. I am also concerned that the use of the term "crimes against humanity" may be considered misleading as to the nature of the charges involved notwithstanding how the term is used in the Finnish Criminal Code which few English Wikinews readers may be familiar with.

Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Metropolitan90! As I also noted in a message to you on your user talk page, the actual charge, the actual crime, and the actual conviction all fall under the section of the Criminal Code of Finland that concerns crimes against humanity. Moreover, there is a particular focus from several sources on the fact that Räsänen and Pohjola were convicted under the section of the Criminal Code of Finland that concerns crimes against humanity. If there are any ambiguities at all, all will be resolved when readers read the article itself. Justthefacts (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Two of the cited sources (Christian Today, ADF International) both say that Rasanen was convicted under a section titled “war crimes and crimes against humanity”, but I hope we're not going to change the headline to say that Rasanen and Pohjola were convicted of war crimes, too. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

The section specifically concerns crimes against humanity and courts determine the severity of the crimes against humanity that were committed, which can range from simply dehumanising a minority to genocide and war crimes. The section of the criminal code of Finland is based on the expertise and scholarship of experts and scholars of crimes against humanity who hold that crimes against humanity begin relatively simple in the form of simply dehumanising minorities and continue escalating until eventually genocide and war crimes. This landmark ruling is precisely regarded as such because it considers that even the most simplest form, dehumanising a minority, does indeed constitute a crime against humanity in and of itself. --Justthefacts (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Luther Foundation

Where does it say that the Luther Foundation was convicted, too? I just checked all of the cited sources and I couldn't find where any of them said that the Luther Foundation was also convicted. In fact, I only saw the phrase "Luther Foundation" in two of the articles (The Guardian and Christianity Today). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Resolved. Justthefacts (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Minor revision requested

@Justthefacts The article's lead section is required to state when the focal point event took place (calendar day, day of the week, ect.). Can you add that in real quick? I would add it myself but I intend to review this article. Thanks. Lofi Gurl (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

March 26, 2026 Alliance Defending Freedom International

@Lofi Gurl Don Don 00:35, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Claude AI helped me. Don Don 00:35, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you add to the article that the ruling happened on Thursday so I don't have to? Lofi Gurl (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @BigKrow. Justthefacts (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Might want to read this

The headline you referenced is a somewhat sensationalized framing of the case, but here's what actually happened: In a narrow 3–2 decision, the Finnish Supreme Court found parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen guilty of "hate speech" related to the expression of her beliefs on marriage and sexual ethics in a 2004 church pamphlet. Alliance Defending Freedom International

@Lofi Gurl Don Don 00:37, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

https://claude.ai/chat/aa894899-c1f6-4236-964a-f90a3f25a23b Don Don 00:44, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

What is this? Lofi Gurl (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

The headline you referenced is a somewhat sensationalized framing of the case, but here's what actually happened: In a narrow 3–2 decision, the Finnish Supreme Court found parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen guilty of "hate speech" related to the expression of her beliefs on marriage and sexual ethics in a 2004 church pamphlet.I asked Claude and this is what was said about the headline.

The headline you referenced is a somewhat sensationalized framing of the case, but here's what actually happened: In a narrow 3–2 decision, the Finnish Supreme Court found parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen guilty of "hate speech" related to the expression of her beliefs on marriage and sexual ethics in a 2004 church pamphlet.

@Lofi Gurl, thanks. Don Don 00:52, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

The actual charge, actual crime, and actual conviction are all under the section of the Criminal Code of Finland that concerns crimes against humanity. Any Artificial intelligence, chatbot, generative AI, large language model can be incorrect about the facts, which is why it is necessary to manually verify. Thank for your involvement nonetheless, @BigKrow. Justthefacts (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

More headline problems

The headline now says, "Supreme Court of Finland makes crimes against the humanity convictions in landmark ruling". This doesn't sound like idiomatic English. The commonly used phrase is "crimes against humanity", not "crimes against the humanity", at least in this context (note that it no longer says "crimes against the humanity of gays and lesbians"). Also, the phrase that a court "makes [name of crime] convictions" is awkward. I wouldn't write that a court "makes murder convictions", "makes kidnapping convictions", etc.; I would write that a court "convicts [someone] of murder", "convicts [someone] of kidnapping", etc. Or in this case, the Supreme Court of Finland convicts [the specified defendants] of crimes against humanity, although several versions of the headline has gone back and forth as to whether to refer to them by name, as politicians, or as Christians. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that it is too vague to simply say that the Supreme Court of Finland made convictions. It should say against Christians, rather than by name or politicians, because there are four defendants, of whom two are individuals and of whom only one is politician and the other is a bishop, and the other two defendants are institutions, and the only thing that they have in common is that they are all Christian. Justthefacts (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Way too many sources

I'm sorry but its just going to take me way too long to review this given that there are like ten sources used in the article and I don't even know if all of them are required to verify the info, I am very overwhelmed at this point, other editors have been moaning and bitching about the way I review articles, and the WMF is now officially closing Wikinews next month so there's no point in finishing this anyway. You can try and see if someone else can review this, but given the way things have been going here the last six months I would not bank on it, man. Lofi Gurl (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I used a significant amount of sources just to be sure, because this is my very first ever Wikinews article! I really appreciate your edits and your work! Could you try and see this through to the end? I really put in a lot of work into this article and would really like to see it published! Justthefacts (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@Justthefacts, come join my news wiki. Don Don 22:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

https://newswikien.fandom.com/wiki/NewsWikiEN_Wiki Don Don 22:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I will try. Lofi Gurl (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Review of revision 5003204 [Not ready]

Revision 5003204 of this article has been reviewed by Lofi Gurl (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:25, 1 April 2026 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: The author's reversion of my removal reintroduced neutrality errors into the artcile. The language is way to emotional and wordy for a WN article. Style: Not ready: There were some really wordy parts with severe overlinking that I removed, but my edits were reverted, bringing the article further from publishable state. Comments by reviewer: The project is fucking fried, man. I'm sorry we couldn't get this published. The announcement to close the project has really just gutted us all, and honestly we are in "wind down" mode now. There is nothing I can do. I'm sorry. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 5003204 of this article has been reviewed by Lofi Gurl (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:25, 1 April 2026 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: The author's reversion of my removal reintroduced neutrality errors into the artcile. The language is way to emotional and wordy for a WN article. Style: Not ready: There were some really wordy parts with severe overlinking that I removed, but my edits were reverted, bringing the article further from publishable state. Comments by reviewer: The project is fucking fried, man. I'm sorry we couldn't get this published. The announcement to close the project has really just gutted us all, and honestly we are in "wind down" mode now. There is nothing I can do. I'm sorry. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Note to reviewer(s)

Hello,

I edited the text to remove one sentence that was vague and created bias ( is consistently ranked at or near the top of various indices of freedom and democracy, and is therefore broadly considered to be a model liberal democracy.) this sentence may be re-added if details is included.

I re-ordered for inverted pyramid

I re-worded for past tense

I added clarifications where possible to avoid bias and make the article more neutral

and I submitted it for review. Hope this is helpful. Newsworthiness is an issue and I hope it can be passed with exception as articles were not published for a while.

Please also note I posted a section here. Gryllida (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Review of revision 5005122 [Not ready]

Revision 5005122 of this article has been reviewed by Lofi Gurl (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:07, 5 April 2026 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Stale. WN:Gatwicking recomended. Can it be done? If this article is saved it could very well be one of the very last Wikinews articles ever, ever. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: None added. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 5005122 of this article has been reviewed by Lofi Gurl (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:07, 5 April 2026 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Stale. WN:Gatwicking recomended. Can it be done? If this article is saved it could very well be one of the very last Wikinews articles ever, ever. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: None added. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Review of revision 5005210 [Passed]

Revision 5005210 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:33, April 6, 2026 (UTC) with the following exceptions: Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed (exception) Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: News is over a week old but I am publishing. The headline could be better but there is so much controversy about how to put it properly that I am content with the current revision. Overall as a piece of feedback, it is necessary to be more factual and as much as possible insert facts rather than qualitative characterizations. I believe this has substantially improved in the last few days as the article has been revised. Thank you. I have read the talk page and I believe the concerns there have been satisfactorily addressed in the recent edits and in the resulting current revision. Copyright check passed flagging only the quote(s) included in the text. I am recommending to add a sentence about expected consequence (fine, jail time) or if it is unknown then, when is this expected to be determined. If you could please make this change within 24 hours, then it could be sighted and be included in the report. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 5005210 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:33, April 6, 2026 (UTC) with the following exceptions: Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed (exception) Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: News is over a week old but I am publishing. The headline could be better but there is so much controversy about how to put it properly that I am content with the current revision. Overall as a piece of feedback, it is necessary to be more factual and as much as possible insert facts rather than qualitative characterizations. I believe this has substantially improved in the last few days as the article has been revised. Thank you. I have read the talk page and I believe the concerns there have been satisfactorily addressed in the recent edits and in the resulting current revision. Copyright check passed flagging only the quote(s) included in the text. I am recommending to add a sentence about expected consequence (fine, jail time) or if it is unknown then, when is this expected to be determined. If you could please make this change within 24 hours, then it could be sighted and be included in the report. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

-- Gryllida (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I find the publication of this article problematic. I agree with @Metropolitan90 above regarding the headline as well as our use of the term 'crimes against humanity.'
There is not adequate, independent support to state that anyone has been found guilty "of crimes against the humanity of gays and lesbians." The available reporting does not support that characterization.
Reuters stated the conviction was for incitement:

The court found Paivi Rasanen, a medical doctor and MP for the small Christian Democratic party since 1995, guilty of incitement against a group by claiming in ​a social media post in 2019 and on her website in 2020 ​that it was scientifically proven that homosexuality was a developmental disorder.

Machine translation of the Supreme Court's release states the following:

A is charged with incitement against a group of people between November 4, 2019 and January 24, 2022 (count 1), for which he is sentenced to a 20-day fine.
B is charged with incitement against a group of people between November 4, 2019 and January 24, 2022 (count 2), for which he is sentenced to a 20-day fine.
The X Foundation is sentenced to a corporate fine of 5,000 euros.

Both the reporting and the court’s own release describe the offense as incitement against a group. I do not see support for describing the conviction as 'crimes against humanity,' and that appears to be a mischaracterization of the ruling.
While one listed source uses that phrasing, it originates from Christian Institute. That phrasing appears in the headline, while the body of the article instead states: "This offence is listed under a chapter of criminal code entitled “war crimes and crimes against humanity”. This reflects a description of the structure of the criminal code rather than the charge or conviction itself, and does not support the wording used in the article.
Similarly, Christian Institute is a perspective-driven publication and does not provide the level of independent, objective reporting needed to support such a claim.
Given that higher-quality, independent sources consistently describe the offense as incitement, I do not see a basis for retaining the current wording.
@Gryllida, as the publishing reviewer, what steps will be taken to correct this?Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 11:57, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Do you believe a retraction is imminent? Lofi Gurl (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I have not conducted a full review of the article. My concerns are currently limited to the use of "crimes against humanity."

I have reviewed the Supreme Court’s release, which describes the conviction as incitement against a group. That characterization is consistent with independent reporting and does not appear to support describing the conviction itself as "crimes against humanity."

Given that, it would be helpful for others to take a closer look at the article more broadly to determine whether additional issues are present and whether this is a matter for correction or something more substantial.

@Lofi Gurl, given your earlier review comments, your perspective would be helpful.

I also have concerns about whether some of the framing—particularly in the discussion below—may be introducing characterization not clearly supported by sources.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 21:35, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I have been arguing against framing this as "convicting Christians of crimes against the humanity of gays" since the beginning, where I evoked Wikinews:NPOV. This framing is not necessary or essential for the article, I don't understand why this is is being brought up again. Imagine if the defendants in question were Jews or Muslims and we ran with that same headline. How do you think that would go? Lofi Gurl (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

The article continues to describe the convictions as “crimes against humanity” in several places:

• "...the Supreme Court of Finland convicted...of crimes against the humanity of gays and lesbians..."
• "The defendants were convicted under the section of the Criminal Code of Finland concerning crimes against humanity..."
• "The decision was a significant precedent with implications for future rulings pertaining to the legal intersection of freedom of speech and freedom of religion with hate speech and crimes against humanity..."
• "...other portions dehumanised gays and lesbians on the basis of their sexual orientation, constituting crimes against humanity..."

These statements do not reflect how the conviction is described in the Supreme Court’s release or in independent reporting, which characterize the offense as incitement against a group. The references to “crimes against humanity” appear to derive from the structure of the criminal code rather than the nature of the conviction itself.

As a journalism project, we are required to ensure that our reporting accurately reflects what sources state. In this case, describing the convictions as “crimes against humanity” is not supported by the available sources and should be corrected.

I don't understand why this is is being brought up again.

This is being raised because the current wording does not align with how the conviction is described in the sources, and accuracy in that regard is a core requirement.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 05:35, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Headline

As previously noted by both @Metropolitan90 and myself, the headline is simply too vague if it does not note the specific sort of defendants convicted by the Supreme Court and as also previously noted by myself, the title should note that Supreme Court convicted Christians, because there are four defendants, of whom two are individuals and of whom only one is politician and the other is a bishop, and the other two defendants are institutions, and the only thing that they have in common is that they are all Christian. Justthefacts (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

If reputable, independent sources explicitly characterize the defendants in that way, we can reflect that with proper attribution. Otherwise, grouping them under a shared identity constitutes editorial analysis, which is not appropriate under WN:NPOV. The headline should follow how the conviction is described in sources, not introduce a characterization that is not clearly supported.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 21:12, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the language in the sources did not describe the defendants that way. They moreso just specifically named their political positions and the organizations they were involved with. Hold my beer. I have an idea. Lofi Gurl (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I changed the headline to reflect what the sources said the defendents were actually convicted of. @Justthefacts please do not move the page back to characterize the defendents as simply "Christians", because that framing creates a Wikinews:NPOV problems that are not in line with our policies. Lofi Gurl (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

The problem with the new headline is that only one of the four defendants was the author. Another defendant was the editor. The remaining two defendants were the publishers. Justthefacts (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

The altered headline is also still problematic as only two of the four defendants were people while the remaining two were institutions. Justthefacts (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Supreme Court of Finland convicts those involved in writing and publishing pamplet for inciting hatred towards homosexuals ? Gryllida (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

We're not changing the headline again. The article has been published for days now. The project is closing. I'm sick and tired of this story. Let's just move on. Lofi Gurl (talk) 10:34, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

We are not changing the article to soley blame Christians for this. I don't give z shit if two of the defendants were institutions. The NPOV problems that would be introduced by changing the article to blame Christians for this would be waaaaaay worse than the problems you are mentioning. Lofi Gurl (talk) 10:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

We literally had to break project policy just to get this published. Please just let it go Lofi Gurl (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Gryllida @Lofi Gurl I took all the collaborative concerns here into account and renamed the article accordingly! What do you think? --Justthefacts (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Proposed retraction

This article has been proposed for retraction here: Wikinews:Deletion requests#Supreme Court of Finland convicts individuals and institutions involved in writing and publishing pamphlet for inciting hatred against gays and lesbians. Please discuss there.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:52, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Following discussion at Wikinews:Deletion requests#Supreme Court of Finland convicts individuals and institutions involved in writing and publishing pamphlet for inciting hatred against gays and lesbians, this article has been retracted.

The article contained a fundamental mischaracterization of the offense, identified prior to publication and not resolved, in violation of WN:CS and WN:NPOV. Subsequent edits did not correct the core issue. As the article was already published, WN:Archive limits post-publication changes and does not permit substantive revisions to address neutrality concerns. The article was also published without a documented justification for an exception under WN:Freshness, despite being identified as stale prior to publication.

Participation in the discussion was limited, reflecting broader low activity on the project at this time in light of the pending closure of the project. Given the policy issues identified, retraction was determined to be necessary.

As an involved administrator, I closed the discussion and self-sighted the retraction to expedite the necessary correction, given the limited participation in the discussion and the project as a whole.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 17:09, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Pretty ironic when you think about it.

Over the last six months I've had so many of my articles go stale while waiting for review despite them being near ready for publication, and then we have this article which was littered with issues and stale as shit still getting published (albiet retracted). Before they announced the project was closing on May 4th I was seriously considering just creating a new account and starting over just to get people to even look at my work. Lofi Gurl (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2026 (UTC)