The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Overall: @AleatoryPonderings: You do not need a QPQ since this is your first nomination, so you can remove that and save it for later (i.e. when you have more than 5 nominations). The copyvio report looked concerning at first, but it's mostly a quote and some phrases that are hard to rephrase. epicgenius (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC) epicgenius (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Thanks! Just struck through the QPQ above. And yes, I checked the copyvio report too and didn't quite know how to address that – phrases like 'act of state doctrine' and 'corporate social responsibility', as well as direct quotes from the judgment, are hard to get around repeating directly. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote ALT1, but the article doesn't mention subsidiaries and it would actually benefit from using this word or otherwise explaining how corporations can violate laws in other countries. Yoninah (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah:This edit should take care of some of those concerns? Given its 60 percent stake—which made it a controlling shareholder—Nevsun qualifies as a "parent" and BMSC as a "subsidiary" of Nevsun. I added two articles to back that up. They're both from mining trade publications (which, obviously, were more interested in the decision than others …), so not clearly WP:RS for general claims, but one includes a direct quote from Nevsun describing BMSC as its subsidiary and the other is an interview with a partner at McMillan LLP which repeatedly describes BMSC as Nevsun's subsidiary. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@AleatoryPonderings: sorry, I somehow missed this ping. Thank you for the new cites. I would just like to know if the decision specifically states that corporations can be held liable in Canadian court if their subsidiaries violate international customary law abroad, or if the decision doesn't mention subsidiaries at all. I'm wondering why you didn't add the subsidiaries part to the lead. Yoninah (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: That's a tricky one. The decision itself (at paragraph 7) uses the word "subsidiary" just once in the relevant sense, describing the mine's operating company as "40 percent owned by the Eritrean National Mining Corporation and, through subsidiaries, 60 percent owned by Nevsun, a publicly-held corporation …". So, in effect, the decision holds that Canadian parent corporations of international subsidiaries can be held liable for the subsidiaries' activities. The source for the claim in the hook, then, comes from the secondary sources I flagged above, not explicit descriptions in the case. If that sounds like OR to you, I understand, and would be happy to withdraw my nom for that reason, or change hook to alt2 below. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
@AleatoryPonderings: You do not need a QPQ since this is your first nomination, so you can remove that and save it for later (i.e. when you have more than 5 nominations). The copyvio report looked concerning at first, but it's mostly a quote and some phrases that are hard to rephrase. epicgenius (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC) epicgenius (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote ALT1, but the article doesn't mention subsidiaries and it would actually benefit from using this word or otherwise explaining how corporations can violate laws in other countries. Yoninah (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)