The following part is not relevant and does not have any sources:
most Finns still realise that for example the Finnish words vuoritekniikka and vuoriteollisuus refer to mining, not mountains.
This article has problems
This article seems highly unusual. It appears to grossly violate WP:verifiability for one thing. But probably up to half or more of all English WP article violate WP:verifiability in some way. My real objection is this article seems somewhat incoherent* (NOT that what is said cannot be understood, but that it gives only an incomplete and fragmented picture of what the subject of the article is really all about). It also seems to violate WP:NPOV. It appears to be written as a memo from the director of a company that translates titles of prestigious Finnish title-holders, including no doubt the title vuorineuvos. Who are the translators and who are the customers? WT...? Apparently the customers are the holders of this title who are seeking to have their titles translated. ??? WP is not primarily about customers and translators; so at a minimum this statement needs clarification and context. If this is a technical guide from a Finnish ministry or a translation service, that's one thing. But that doesn't belong in WP, which s/b about elucidating, clarifying, sharing info. A basic premise of this article seems to be that Finns or at least the honorable holders of this title are a different species and that therefore their ways or at least this specific honor is indecipherable. I think that is at odds with the purpose of an encyclopedia including WP. Could someone please try to make this more complete and informative so it reads more like an encyclopedia entry than an internal company memo. This is a worthy subject and deserves more complete treatment. Paavo273 (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- The article could have more sources and it could be more complete, better structured etc. but I fail seeing any any issue with the NPOV. The memo/instruction is written by an official who works for the state of Finland and I don't find any colouring in it that would favour of any instance. On the other hand, I don't understand how could a Finnish official decide about the terminology used in English language. --Gwafton (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply and clarification; I think you're absolutely right. What I meant by NPOV viol. was the POV of the PM's office about translating being stated as fact. The real problem, however, as I see it, was that translating it is ancillary at best to what the title is about and thus the wrong focus of the article. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)