Talk:Neste

Merge proposal
Propose to merge Neste into Neste Oil. Articles are very related and currently both articles are stubs. Merging these articles could assist to improve overall coverage of the topic.Beagel 07:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge. Seems a reasonable rationale to me. Gr1st 10:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merger completed.Beagel 18:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Structure
Please follow common structure. First section is usually History followed by current company information and controversy section will be only after that (if the article is not specifically about controversy, which is not the case here). Beagel 10:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Newspapery text
This text has been added again:
 * Neste has been creating headlines around Europe in November 2007 for its controversial move into using palm oil as a major feedstock in its biofuels.[3] Neste's claim that movements into palm oil diesel will reduce greenhouse gases are refuted by Greenpeace, who claim that the deforestation caused by making way for oil palm plantations is far more damaging for the climate.[4] Swedish filling station chain OKQ8 delayed the launch of its Neste-produced Eco20 biodiesel after protests at the group's headquarters by Greenpeace activists,[5] citing concerns over the sustainability of Neste's palm oil.[6] OKQ8 and Neste have pledged to cooperate on producing biodiesels from alternative feedstocks such as rapeseed oil.[6] On November 30th 2007, Neste announced a plan to build the world's largest biofuel refinery in Singapore by 2010, an investment of €550 million.[3] The refinery will use palm oil as its main raw material.[3] Neste Oil is a member of the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil, an inititaive aimed at establishing a sustainability standard for producing palm oil. The company has pledged to use environmentally friendly palm oil, certified by the RSPO, "as soon as possible".[5] The certification process was unveiled in November 2007, however the first certified palm oil will not be produced until the first quarter of 2008.[7]

General remark about this: this is newspaper style: claim, counterclaim, claim. The result is a very confusing paragraph where it is difficult to say what is the ultimate result. It may be exciting to write, but it is a pain to read. A better style should discuss the issues rather than list developments in a timeline format. Second, the errors: This list is here to motivate edits to fix these problems in the text and make it into a neutral, encyclopedic synopsis. --Vuo 13:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) "to create headlines" - journalists do this, not the subjects: "has been a subject of headlines". However, this part is unnecessary (see next).
 * 2) "controversial move" - Neste hasn't made any move, palm oil has been the planned feedstock from the start. Neste didn't suddenly "move into palm oil" to annoy people. The sentence should be formatted more like "Neste has been criticized by Greenpeace for using palm oil as a major feedstock." It's irrelevant to the subject matter how popular this has been in the news media.
 * 3) "component" - palm oil is not a component - the diesel does not contain any raw palm oil - but a feedstock. fixed.
 * 4) "its biofuels" - only in NExBTL diesel. Propane is used at the refinery.
 * 5) "Neste's claim" - claim in a nonexistent discussion (as far as I know, Greenpeace and Neste haven't had meetings, Greenpeace just suddenly attacked the Neste tanker).
 * 6) "movements into palm oil diesel" - "movements" appears to be a sveticism or finnicism; switchover is the correct term.
 * 7) "by environmental groups such as Greenpeace" - what other groups? Implicit astroturfing. fixed.
 * 8) "who claim that the deforestation caused by making way for oil palm plantations is far more damaging for the climate." - counterclaim. Quotes Greenpeace as is, without editing into a more encyclopedic format. Immediately appears to claim that Neste actually wants to destroy rainforest and damage the climate, but technically NPOV. The habitat destruction problem and the "law of one price" problem with respect to rainforest are not mentioned. The entire sentence would be better written like "According to Greenpeace, rainforest is cut to make way for palm oil plantations, which releases carbon to the atmosphere, endangering the carbon neutrality of the fuel and the habitat of endangered species such as the orangutan."
 * 9) "Swedish filling station chain OKQ8 delayed the launch of its Neste-produced Eco20 biodiesel after protests at the group's headquarters by Greenpeace activists,[5] citing concerns over the sustainability of Neste's palm oil.[6]" vs. " OKQ8 and Neste have pledged to cooperate on producing biodiesels from alternative feedstocks such as rapeseed oil.[6]" claim - counterclaim. Should be "OKQ8 delayed the launch of Neste diesel until the sustainability of palm oil was ensured from Neste."
 * 10) "producing biodiesels from alternative feedstocks such as rapeseed oil" - not mentioned that rapeseed has suitability, price and availability problems compared to palm oil (there isn't enough land in Finland to satisfy the corresponding demand if diesel was made from domestic rapeseed oil).
 * 11) "... an inititaive aimed ..." - "initiative"
 * 12) "The certification process was unveiled in November 2007, however the first certified palm oil will not be produced until the first quarter of 2008." should be "The certification process was unveiled in November 2007 and the production of certified palm oil starts in the first quarter of 2008." or even just "The production of certified palm oil starts in the beginning of 2008", because the unveiling of the process is a news item, not an encyclopedic fact that is going to be in the article next hundred years.
 * 13) The fact that currently palm oil is produced for the food industry in an unsustainable, rainforest-destroying manner was removed. It is relevant because Neste is pioneering the production of rainforest-certified palm oil diesel.
 * There is no need to correct this anymore - it has been removed and I rewrote a relevant paragraph to NExBTL. --Vuo (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And the same continues
Compare:


 * The use of any palm oil as a feedstock and Neste Oil's plans to become the world leader in palm oil diesel has been protested by Greenpeace. Neste Oil was also awarded on the 13th of April with the public price of the public eye award for being the most irresponsible company of the year 2011 despite Neste Oil's claims of supporting sustainability. Neste Oil (among others) buys palm oil from IOI Group, company allegedly responsible for illegal deforestation. 


 * Neste Oil has responded to the criticism by pointing out that it remains the largest user of certified palm oil in the world, and has been committed to using only certified palm oil by the year 2015. 


 * Neste Oil demanded Greenpeace critisism www-pages (Neste Spoil) to be closed based on claim of conflict with its trademark. Greenpaece consider Neste Oil attack as conflict in the right of critisism and right of expression.  Neste oil filed their claims through the World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO Greenpeace is not doing business with the page and page named as Spoil is hardly misunderstood as company data. Later Neste sued in the court the page provider. As consequence it closed the page giving evidence of the political opinion of the provider and/or the vulnerability of the freedom of expression in the Internet. Greenpeace opened the page somewhere else.

vs.


 * The use of any palm oil as a feedstock and Neste Oil's plans to become the world leader in palm oil diesel has been protested by Greenpeace. Neste Oil (among others) buys palm oil from IOI Group, company allegedly responsible for illegal deforestation. 


 * Neste Oil has been a target of sustained attacks by Greenpeace, including publicity campaigns and a parody webpage, which Neste attempted to shut down. 


 * Neste Oil has responded to the criticism by pointing out that it remains the largest user of certified palm oil in the world, and has been committed to using only certified palm oil by the year 2015. 

Excuse me for "deletionism", but which makes more sense in the eyes of a casual outside observer? --vuo (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyedits by Beagel
I actually liked the IP contributor's new structure as in this revision better than the revert to old. As you can see from this diff, whole sections have been deleted, subsection headings removed, and suspicious removals of content have been done. All of this is nothing but a step backwards, and puts into question the adherence to NPOV and neutrality in general of the changes made. I agree that verbatim copying from a corporate report is wrong, but just deleting or reverting everything "because capitalist are all evil" is more so. The first aid would be to revert, but not to claim all the edits done are wrong; but, I think it's better to sort out carefully which were right one-by-one rather than try to incrementally backpedal to the 10 June version.

Second, I have to dispute this particular edit: diff. It's not greenwashing to say Neste produces low-emission traffic fuels and other oil products; it is factually accurate. That is because of two points; 1) regulation aiming at low emissions is stricter in Europe and in Finland than elsewhere, thus a company that has to conform to strict domestic regulations is also automatically able to do that for other customers, too. 2) Neste has made a conscious and deliberate decision to heavily invest in biofuels, something that national oil companies haven't usually done, and has made a profitable business out of it. These claims are objectively, not just subjectively correct.

As for the diversity of sources, as the one who added most (and they're annoyingly difficult to find), that is true, but does not really compromise accuracy, because in general it is hard to find details on corporations elsewhere than in their own writings. Yet, I know that for instance Suomen kemianteollisuus and possibly other sources are there to check, and eventually should be done. --vuo (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Additions from the company's IP are highly promotional violating WP:POV and WP:COI. The particular edit you referred may be factually correct but it makes false impression. It should be specified more detailed way later, but for the lead it is not suitable. As for the structure, I used the standard structure. Creation of small subsection having just one paragraph (except for renewable fuels which is not proportional compared to other subsections) is discourage. By your reversion you also re-introduced headings which are not in line with WP:MOS. For the palm oil, the issue is discussed in the different subsections in contradicting way. Share of palm oil in different subsections are provided differently, one subsections says that all palm oil in 2013 was certified while other subsection says that all palm oil will be certified by 2015 etc. Therefore, I will revert you block reversion. If there are specific issues, I think we could fix them one by one but restoring promotional and out of date version is not acceptable. Beagel (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality of image #2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neste_Oil#mediaviewer/File:Neste_Oil_Porvoo_refinery2.jpg.

After seeing the sheet telling "destroying the rainforest!", without taking any sides of the discussion I wonder if such images should be removed for minimal influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dermi (talk • contribs) 11:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 31 May 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Neste (company) → Neste – Neste already redirects to this article. Keeping the artificial title just complicates the search. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Beagel (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed per above ʬʬ (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, leave as is. The redirect is functioning fine and the (company) indication is helpful to anyone looking for Neste (river), see Neste (disambiguation), particularly mobile phone users. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Either do as nom suggests or move the river to Neste, which ever best matches a standard WP:PRIMARYTOPIC analysis. There's no point redirecting from the base name to a disambiguated name, either way. Use hatnotes to disambiguate. I'd also be okay with the DAB page moving to the bare name, if PRIMARYTOPIC is unclear.  I suspect that the river is the primary topic if we do various book searches and such. Google suggests it's the company, but WP:RECENTISM is a big concern with a search like that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment move dab to base since there is no clear primary 76.120.162.73 (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Let see what other wikies say: In Estonian et:Neste, Latvian lv:Neste, Postugal pt:Neste, Russian ru:Neste, Swedish sv:Neste the main meaning is the company. In German de:Neste is dab, for the company the page is de:Neste (Unternehmen) which is equivalent to the current page in English. I Spanish there is no article named Neste, for the company there is es:Neste Oil. In French fr:Neste is for the river, for the company there is fr:Neste (Compagnie). In Italian and Polish, Neste is for the river, Neste Oil is for the company. In Finnish, fi:Neste is an article about liquid what is the primary meaning in that language, for the company the article is fi:Neste (yritys) and there is no article about the River. So this seems that the primary meaning is depends of the geolocation. Concerning WP:RECENTISM, I disagree with this. First, the company was established in 1948, which means that it is not the recent one. Second, if you think that the ordinary Google search is biased, please try Google Book and Google Scholar for searches Neste + company and Neste + river. For Google Book it 39,200 versus 14,800 and for Google Scholar it is 45,700 versus 31,000. So the primary meaning seems to be quite clear. We should also take account that Neste was an article about the company before it was merged into Neste Oil. Beagel (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Move Neste (disambiguation) to . Clearly the current setup is incorrect, but I think the evidence above actually shows there is no clear primary topic and so the dab page should be at the base name. Jenks24 (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Change to support. Cuchullain's evidence has convinced me the company is the primary topic. Jenks24 (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. There are only two articles actually called "Neste", the rest are partial title matches. Of the two, the company is the clear primary topic. It received 1411 page views in the last 90 days, plus another 800 for the redirect Neste. The only other ambiguous article, Neste (river), received 440 page views. Google Books is similar; Neste company returns 37k hits, compared to 14k for Neste river.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-RM comment: Big LOL with regard to the idea that something only existing since 1948, vs a river that's been there since the dawn of language, not being something to consider under a WP:RECENTISM analysis. In 50 years, the company probably won't even exist any longer but the river will, and will still be named Neste. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Construction
Neste Oil parner IOI Group sell both palm oil and has Marriott hotel. After this partnership Merriott bought old Shell petrol station with its environmental risks, to build a high hotel in Tapiola. I add some points here. The construction right was given to an other company. Public hearing in respect to Marriott was never taken place. Construction right excludes a share of public beach that is tagged as flooding area. This was not presented. European Union deny to build in the flooding area. Espoo coastline has high risk of flooding. IOI Group is in palm oil business like earlier Nokia partner Metsäliitto. Metsäliitto is responsible of high climate gas emissions from ditched and drained peatlands in Finland. In respect to peatland criticism Neste Oil, Metsäliitto and as it seems now also Marriott hotel have combined agency. Metsäliitto has received also right in skyscrapers in Tapiola on the other side of the road from public beatch. Elderly local people have never forgiven Neste Oil its high construction. Watti Renew (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neste. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101212030206/http://www.cleantechfinland.com/success_cases/neste_oil_ to http://www.cleantechfinland.com/success_cases/neste_oil_/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Neste. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160314210131/https://www.neste.com/en/companies/products/renewable-products to https://www.neste.com/en/companies/products/renewable-products
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160604231806/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/neste-pal-oil-drives-climate-change/ to http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/neste-pal-oil-drives-climate-change/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120525075635/http://www.tietokone.fi/uutiset/neste_ei_sieda_kritiikkisivustoa to http://www.tietokone.fi/uutiset/neste_ei_sieda_kritiikkisivustoa

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Paid editing
This article has been recently rewritten by paid editor. It seems that a lot of it is actually translated from fi:Neste (yritys) without proper attribution. There is also problem that edits a not properly explained and the text after edits were highly promotional. It also seems that some negative information was removed from the text. It also should be kept in mind that the COI guidelines strongly discourage COI editing, particularly mass editing, and requesting necessary edits at the talk page is more proper way. Therefore I encourage the editor in question to avoid direct editing, and discuss and request their edits at the talk page. Beagel (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How to add a proper attribution about the translations? I'm the main editor behind the Neste article in Finnish and I've used the same references there and here. Last month I was asked not to edit directly and after that we had a long discussion about it, see . So after that I think that I am allowed to edit as far as I follow the Wikipedia rules. The text that you said were highly promotional were referenced by secondary media sources. E.g. "Neste on muuttunut seitsemänkymmenen vuoden aikana paikallisesta öljynjalostajasta maailman suurimmaksi uusiutuvan dieselin tuottajaksi." (In seventy years, Neste has changed from a local oil refiner to the world’s largest producer of renewable diesel.) Ref: . Jjanhone (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * for attribution, see WP:TFOLWP. Since you failed to do it initially, you can mend this by following the instructions at WP:RIA. Find the time of the first edit incorporating a translation and use NOTE: The previous edit as of hh:mm, M DD, YYYY, translated content from the existing Finnish Wikipedia article at fi:Neste (yritys); see its history for attribution. as an edit summary in a dummy edit. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've added the template now. :) But as the most of the translated text are now removed, I don't know to which versions I should refer. Jjanhone (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Changes in Nov 2020
Yes, I've added a lot of new text on the article and it's difficult to see what the situation is now. Let's see if a table helps.

So during these edits the article has grown by 16,161 characters while I've added 33,854 characters. So about 48 % of my additions are live. Any ideas about how to talk about the 52 % that was removed? The text I added was translated from Finnish Wikipedia. Jjanhone (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no such kind of thing as ownership of the article. For statistics, at the moment 47.4% of authorship of this article is attributed to which is 4.5 times more than by the second largest contributor . This is precedential for paid editing, particularly if we recall the scandal back in 2012 with paid editor of BP who actually never edited the article but only made proposal at the talk page. Beagel (talk) 10:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of the BP case and don't know how to measure how many % each user has written. As I've brought a translation here, the whole text is not written by me actually, it would be nice to hear the % for the Finnish article as well. 47.7 % is not a big part for myself I think as I typically write about subjects others are not interested about. So there must be bigger portions on some of "my" articles. Jjanhone (talk) 11:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In general, yes, the percentage without a context does not mean much; however, for paid editing it is extremely high share, particularly if some additions are disputed. You can read about the BP case here. I have to say that the article I linked is not correct about facts. Actually never made any direct edit to the BP article and the percentage of 44% was incorrect firstly calculated by very biased and non-scientific way by one involved editor; however, it was very big scandal and reputation damage to the company. Beagel (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The percentage 47.7 is calculated by a special tool under the article's history. Beagel (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Palm oil section
Information to be added or removed: the content from the table's right column Explanation of issue:So let's start discussing about my proposals based on the content we have in Finnish Wikipedia. The proposal can be found from version 991542527. The problem with the current version is that there is so many primary sources (by Neste, WWF and Greenpeace) used instead of more neutral media sources that were used in my version. Jjanhone (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC) References supporting change: 991542527 Jjanhone (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * As the palm oil issue is controversial, the block change, particularly if removing critics, is not acceptable. At the same time, the existing text is in bad shape, so I propose to deal with it on sentence by sentence or paragraph by paragraph bases. Beagel (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So am I allowed to do the additions myself or do we wait a third persion to solve the case? Jjanhone (talk) 11:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:PAID "... those with a conflict of interest, including paid editors, are very strongly discouraged from directly editing affected articles". Beagel (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree fully with Beagel. The new text is not properly written and lacks sources. To expedite this edition I would suggest you completely re-write the block, remove anecdotal information, and make sure that all potentially controversial information if properly backed by third-party sources.  This request is over 3 months old, and should you choose not to correct the proposed text block, it's likely to be rejected. Ferkijel (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you check the comments above and decide how to proceed? I don't want to just decline the edit request without further agreements. Ferkijel (talk) 08:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This request is no longer valid. The Palm Oil section has been re-written since this was requested.Ferkijel (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ferkjl for asking my opinion. I was unable to answer fast enough but luckily the thing is solved. But now I'm wondering if I should make a new edit request to get someone to evaluate if the article is non-neutral or not (re: the Paid template used). Did you happen to read the article and if so do you think there are still problems?Jjanhone (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Operations chapter
Information to be added or removed: the content from the table's right column Explanation of issue:So let's start discussing about my proposals based on the content we have in Finnish Wikipedia. The proposal can be found from version 991542527. The problem with the current version is that it is lacking the information of Neste products.Jjanhone (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

References supporting change: 991542527 Jjanhone (talk) 09:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The process (operation) is refining. Refineries are tool for refining and oil products are result of the refining process, so the separation of those two is somehow artificial, so therefore I don't see any justification for it. The proposed text is also over-wordiness. E.g. for the proposed Refineries subsection there is a sentence In addition to its own refineries, Neste holds 45% stake in oil plant in Bahrain and one in Nynas AB, which produces naphthenic oil and bitumen. For the first part of this sentence, what we will loose if we skip In addition to its own refineries and just say Neste holds 45% stake in oil plant in Bahrain Actually nothing. The second part needs to be clarified what is meant by "one in Nynas AB". I would be more clear to say that Neste owns 50% stake in the Swedish refining company Nynas AB. As there is an existing link to Nynas AB, no need to specify what Nynas is producing.


 * The proposed subsection Oil products is highly promotional. I would be in interests of the company to list oil their products by brand names, and repeatedly to underline the words Renewable and Sustainable in their products names, but is is exactly what Wikipedia is not. Repeating from what and how it produced is also not suitable here as we have for this a separate article named Neste Renewable Diesel (which is also problematic itself but lets deal with this later). In overall, I strongly oppose the block change. However, there is definitely room to improve the article, so I propose to go through the existing text sentence by sentence or paragraph by paragraph and make additions or changes separately. Beagel (talk) 10:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The product names (Neste Renewable Diesel and Neste Renewable Jet Fuel, and Neste Renewable Naphtha, Neste Renewable Propane, and Neste Renewable Isoalkane) were already on the article before I started editing, see . I'm not saying they should be there just that I was not the one who added them. Jjanhone (talk) 11:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I believe that after latest edits all important information is included. Is there anything specific you want to add in addition of? Beagel (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I need to re-read both of the articles before I can answer and ask comments from my customer too. And I really value your efforts here, good job indeed! Jjanhone (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Renewable products to be added
Information to be added or removed: the content from the table Explanation of issue: So let's start discussing about my proposals based on the content we have in Finnish Wikipedia. The proposal can be found from version 991542527. The problem with the current version is that it is lacking the information of Neste's renewable products.Jjanhone (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

References supporting change: 991542527 Jjanhone (talk) 09:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no policy what ever that we should discussed based on the text existing in other language Wiki. The discussion should based on the existing text or as an alternative on the text before your edits. Beagel (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The above text may include some useful facts; however, in general it is highly promotional and as such does not belong to the Encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a tool for advertising company's products or to promote the corporation. Beagel (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * But an article about a company should mention its' main products, not just some of them.Jjanhone (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It does. The first sentence of the current Refining section says that Neste refines crude oil and other feedstocks to produce gasolines, diesel, aviation and marine fuels, light and heavy fuel oils, base oils, gasoline components, special fuels and solvents. Which product is not mentioned here? Of course, it is very different from Renewable this and Renewable that what was proposed and which is in the proposed wording highly promotional. Beagel (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Facts from this request are added to the History and Operations sections. Beagel (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Citation needed
There are currently quite many issues that need citation. Can those be removed now, someone will add them back once they've found the refs? Jjanhone (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * yes, please go ahead. Challenged content can be removed at any time and should not be restored without a citation. I'd say removing those is an improvement irrespective of the nature of the content (positive, negative, neutral). But it's good that you asked to keep things transparent and build consensus. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Paid contributions tag
A paid editor made contributions to this article, and has disclosed that fact on this page, therefore the paid contributions template is a matter of fact and does not require discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the policy "if you place the Paid tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article." As a paid editor I'm not allowed to remove the tag myself, but if any volunteer editor thinks that the neutral point of view of the article is ok, they are free to remove the tag as told in the Template:Paid contributions instructions: "If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning."Jjanhone (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Beagel! You've edited this article earlier, do you see some problems in its content? Jjanhone (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed paid contribution and connected editor tags from the article main space because these tags at the main space are used only in the case if the there is any major issue needing editing, and this information is disclosed at the talk page (relevant tags in place at the top of the talk page). Beagel (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Market Capitalization - Real Value?
I would like to inquiry the real value of Neste.

According to Wikipedia Finnish version it is 333 bn.

With those assets and revenues let alone the strategy or products it seems quite propagandist information.

May I inquiry what do You think about those numbers and enterprice?

They block me continuesly due to my data and information with sources in Finland.

Sincerely,

--Atlas Kartasto (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)