Talk:Corporate human rights violations

First comments
This is a great article, and before a certain crowd comes in, note that it is missional, since it has to do with authoritarianism. — Oxyaena Harass  14:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a huge love of abusive international corporations even among RW's right wing or centrist set. This article isn't in any danger, and the missionality is pretty clear.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Though maybe this is a honeypot for getting sued. Right now the citations look pretty good.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For reference, has Wikipedia ever got sued for writing about corporate abuse or does Wikipedia have very strict guidelines on those? 22:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Defamation law does apply when businesses are targeted, so claims about extant businesses here should be well referenced. Bongolian (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that "reputation management" agencies don't usually go after wikipedia through legal channels because of the risk of backfire. They send grunts to argue wikipedia rule technicalities in the talk page until they can drag the offending material down.  I don't know if they'd extend us the same courtesy.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, do we have that kind of influence to the point corporations will care about it? 00:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's the great thing about delegating. These businesses don't go hunting for criticism themselves, they hire reputation management firms, who monitor top results for searching their clients' names algorithmically, and plug that into a sentiment analysis.  They hyper specialize in harassing people who they think can be bullied.  Capitalism.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Chiquita Brands International
Arguably a good place to look for more material--Hastur! (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

UDHR
I think it would be a good idea to be clear about which Article of the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was violated, or potentially violated. Bongolian (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's literaly said in the background entry. Or do you mean how each individual article is violated. It should noticed that (unfortunately) the UDHR is not legally binding.—Tuxer (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant the individual cases, at least when it wasn't clear. The UDHR at least is a well-recognized standard. Other sources are fine too, like the European court rulings that are in the article now. Bongolian (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)