Talk:Juha Sipilä

The Controversies section is problematic
I've done a fair bit of grammar fixing on the controversies section. It appears these sections were originally written by someone with a less than perfect grasp of the English language. I'm also aware that Wikipedia discourages these kinds of sections as they tend to be magnets for any and all controversies relating to the person reagardless of WP:WEIGHT. That's actually what I want to post about here. I'm beginning to think the Environmental Policy sub-section really has no place here. It's a recent development and seems terribly insignificant (considering it hasn't happened).

For comparison, I also took a look at the Finnish article where the Talvivaara stuff is integrated into the prime ministership section of Sipilä's bio. There's a grand total of 1 mention of Talvivaara and 2 of Terrafame and 0 for Chempolis yet it's given its own section here. The Finnish article makes a much bigger deal of dismissive statements towards researchers and the Yleisradio scandal, and only mentions the Talvivaara/Terrafame controversy in connection to the way they were reported on.

I haven't read the whole article, just given it a cursory glance so I'm not sure are there slightly different criteria for talking about a poltician in the article from the perspective of their native culture vs. English culture. It just seems that Sipilä's article here devotes a lot of space to the controversies which the Finnish article seems to deem rather irrelevant or minor.

Comments? --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * At this moment, I'd be in favour of integrating the Talvivaara/Terrafame material into the Government-section, removing the Environmental Policy section altogether and leave the Chempolis stuff as its own sub-section. --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * That sounds good to me, and is at least better than the article is now. The source in the environmental policy section talks about the Sipilä cabinet (which has its own article), and I'm sure there are a lot of articles where someone has criticized the cabinet for various things, but that doesn't mean they need to be mentioned in his biography. -kyykaarme (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I applied my proposed change of integrating the Talvivaara/Terrafame entry into the Politics section, along with added mention of YLE scandal and also made the Government section its own subsection of the Politics Section.

I also made a change in a separate edit to move the Chempolis-stuff under Business, since it really is a business venture. If others feel it's not appropriate though, feel free to revert. --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Sipilä climate gas emissions
In 2018 Juha Sipilä boosted to be green by promising to compensate his climate gas emissions. Please clarify : How much he has planted forest this far with his own hands? When? Is it equal to all his cumulative emissions? What is the security that these trees will never be cut down and compensation eliminated? What is estimation of his climate change gas emissions from his air travel and road traffic and large family and more than one flats annually and cumulatively? He has also boosted to use an electric car. Is this the only car in use of his family? ref. Helsingin Sanomat Kuukausiliite 11/2018 Watti Renew (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Alternative biographies of Juha Sipilä
I think these are very important sources to complete his biography https://hottestheadsofstate.com/2015/08/juha-sipila/ http://kasperstromman.com/2015/05/07/foreplay-juha-sipila-ja-aistinautintojen-hallitusneuvottelut/ Thepottato (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)