Talk:Evil corporation

Another source
I don't have time at the moment to add it in myself, but here's a decent source that could be used in the body to make the article more than just a list.

http://www.bizmology.com/2011/03/08/bad-company-science-fiction-and-the-evil-corporation/ -- Fyrefly (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I would also recommend not having each entry in the list in bold, since this is not a standard Wikipedia practice that I've seen. -- Fyrefly (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Pointless?
this article is a load of crap, half these corporations it is a stretch to consider evil, the Tyrel corporation? I take particular issue with this, when they roll out the first batch of mindless realistic sex machines you may beg to differ, it's only after they go mad and start killing people you're like "oh yeah they're evil, evil all along"...maybe this article should be called, "list of made up corporations" DarkShroom (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The road to hell is paved with good intentions. SpeakFree (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Not so evil
Buy 'n' Large and Black Mesa do no belong on this list. Buy 'n' Large did not kill anyone and made an honest effort to preserve the Earth after leaving the planet. Black Mesa isn't evil, they just made a mistake when creating teleportation. In the canon of Half-Life, Black Mesa was entirely dedicated to the good of humanity unlike Apeture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.138.107 (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, Sarif Industries of Deus Ex: HR is probably the least malevolent of all the corporations featured in the game. While there were accusations about unethical behaviour, most turned out to have been orchestrated by the illuminati.--31.205.2.74 (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "While there were accusations about unethical behaviour, most turned out to have been orchestrated by the illuminati.". I would quote that verbatim in any AFD for this article. --180.249.121.221 (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Real evil corporations
Assuming we can find a WP:RS labeling a corporation evil, I think the responsible thing to do is include it. --180.249.121.221 (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And I would completely disagree. As is stated in the lead, this article is about a mechanic of modern storytelling. Real corporations have no place here, regardless of whether people consider them evil. What you're suggesting is like putting real people in the Antihero article. -- Fyrefly (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

What is this, tvtropes?
Seriously... what's up with this article? -_- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.175.36.196 (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The article explains itself pretty clearly. If you're confused, you should try to ask a more specific question. -- Fyrefly (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I would actually second this question. Its not a matter of subject material, its a matter of tone. It _reads_ like a TVTropes article-- moreover it is phrased like a TVTropes article; see the usage of useless phrases like "arguably defines" or "technically misguided [but]" peppered throughout, and at one point the article even calls one of the examples a "modern example of the longstanding _trope_..." (ignoring the fact that most of the examples used are modern). Its hard not to think of that website while reading this page. The first couple paragraphs are decent, although heavy on the links, but then the meat of the article is nothing but a list of examples in trivia style (such as the unnecessary notes about the various fictional slogans) rather than a serious breakdown of the concept or the history of its use in SF stories. Compare this to many other pages about common SF themes or motifs on wikipedia. This just needs a rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1:9200:9DB:29F7:4036:6F8A:10CF (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Compare
Compare every corporation with a plantation, especially easy with Wal-Mart, same thing. Aslave9090 (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The list should go or be split off
There used to be a much longer list in this article which was split off to List of fictional evil corporations which was subsequently deleted as it grew too long and unsourced. So why keep an arbitrary list of a few examples? It will only grow again and then be removed. 82.169.103.207 (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Evil Corp. as Evil Corp. in Mr. Robot
In the show the evil corp is called Evil Corp. The corp uses a company logo very similar to the 'Enron' symbol, which I find very interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.120.116.229 (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Evil corporation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150402171916/http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/5531/evilcorporations.jpg to http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/5531/evilcorporations.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Move revert
I saw that per Articles for deletion/Evil corporation, the article was moved to evil corporations in fiction. I had proposed it for deletion for similar reasons, but when I researched a second time, I found enough sourcing to overhaul the lead section into something more credible. The term is not used just in fiction, so the move should not have taken place. The negative impression of this article stems from the largely-unsourced list of "evil corporations". I had left it alone, but since it was contentious enough to lead to an AfD despite the sourced lead section, we should just remove it. There are some list-type reliable sources out there that list "evil corporations", and we should use these to highlight what others have found worth noting. (Rather than just using primary sources.) Pinging those involved with the AfD to indicate that the list has been removed and that the prose has been expanded more to talk about real-world companies:, , , , ,. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Someone tried to move the article to evil corporation in fiction based on the AfD (as part of a possible wikihounding). Can other editors weigh in about my reverting and revision that I explained above? The list of fictional evil companies is gone, and there is a paragraph about the trope being applied to contemporary corporations. thanked me so I assume they are fine with this reverting and revision. Do others have an issue with the article's now-general scope?, , , , . Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)*


 * Whoa I came new to the page (a very brief page) went to take a look at talk and found the AFD with a clear consensus to Move to Evil corporations in fiction dated to last week but not yet acted upon. So I moved it.  Now I find myself accused of "harrassment"?   I'm not certain what the correct thing to do is at this point, but surely moving it back to the original title  with no consensus to do so and accusing a fellow editor of wikihounding is not the correct procedure.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I now see that without discussion on this page, the article was trimmed and restored to the original title. I do not agree that sources support this title.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have listed the revised article at AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC), , , , , . .E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

“In order to avoid accusations of being evil, Google..
[had Don’t be evil motto]” is essentially what the article says. I didn’t see that motive in source from Atlantic magazine, and I don’t see how we can be sure that Google founders motive for the motto was that cynical.Rich (talk) 03:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Frustrating situation
I’m apparently not supposed to be allowed to insert examples of evil corporations unless the source calls the corporation itself”evil.” But that’s like the article is claiming i and others in the unwashed mashes always use exactly the words “evil corporation” when we might instead say selfish company, or criminal multinational conglomerate etc. It’s absurd when the article itself is based on bad scholarship, we’re splitting hairs to avoid giving the reader worthwhile informationRich (talk) 03:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I understand your frustration, but without the term, any filtering is vague. Are smoking companies evil? Fossil-fuel companies? The proper source using the explicit term makes it irrefutable to include, otherwise it will start discussions simply involving our own perspectives. In reflecting on this and looking around, I found a relevant list. How about we add List of companies involved in the Holocaust to the "See also" section? IG Farben is on it, plus other pertinent companies. That section is for "tangentially related" links, and that list would qualify. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)