Talk:Manchester City F.C.

message: Single-purpose editors on this page have repeatedly inserted misleading, deceptive and unsourced text that claims that City are owned by a "British-based company". This should not be in the article. City are owned by the Abu Dhabi United Group, which in turn is owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. Inserting "British-based company" into the article appears to be intended to mislead readers and obscure that City are owned by a senior figure in the UAE government. Thenightaway (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The single-purpose editor Monerals has now on multiple occasions restored text claiming that City are owned by a British-based company without participating on the talk page. Thenightaway (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The company referred to is City Football Group, they are a British-based company and that is neither controversial, misleading or unsourced. They have their offices in Britain, their employees are in Britain, they are owned by other companies (which is described in the same sentence), the majority owner is Abu Dhabi United Group, and they also have a significant ownership stake from Silver Lake Capital an American company. Stop edit warring. Paul  Bradbury 09:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which reliable sources describe City Football Group as "British-based"? More importantly, which reliable sources emphasize that Manchester City are owned by a "British-based" company rather than, say, Abu Dhabi? Thenightaway (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentance you keep editing, states that city football group is majority owned by the UAE. City Football group is a British-based company, the UK government is a reliable source and companies house shows the registration as a British company. The employees are British employees, the offices are primarily in the UK. The ultimate ownership is spelt out in the same sentence. It is unclear other than a bias on your part why this is contoversial. Paul  Bradbury 16:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  This source is a primary source, not a secondary reliable source. Your interpretation of the source in question falls under WP:OR. If this is all so uncontroversial, why are you unable to find a single reliable source to substantiate your interpretation? Thenightaway (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no restriction on using a primary source in this way, please explain what policy you think this is violating. There is no Original Research here, no analysis or synthesis is being done. Please don't just quote WP guidelines without understanding them and explaining specifically what part of that guideline is being violated and specifically how. Paul  Bradbury 17:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're using your interpretation of a primary source (a government company registry) to substantiate the claim that the City Football Group is a "British-based company". The source at no point says that the company is "British-based". This is textbook WP:OR. Again, if your interpretation is so uncontroversial, why are you unable to find a single reliable source that substantiates it? Thenightaway (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Because information about companies is boring and not reported on much, it's not very noteworthy, if it was controversial I might be able to find a source. Is your contention that a company is not based where it is registered and pays taxes? And that an assertion that it is, is WP:OR rather than a simple statement of fact? What is it that you consider qualifies for being based? Also on what basis do you think the sentence is deceptive? It says that city are owned by a British based holding company that is owned by Abu Dhabi United. Where is the deception. I don't think "British-based" adds much to the article as a whole but I don't understand your reasons for removing it other than what seems like an agenda with bias against the subject in question. Paul  Bradbury 18:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not buy that the ownership of one the most successful clubs in world team is being ignored by reliable sources because it's "boring". In fact, reliable sources have covered City's ownership intensely and none of them characterize the owners as a "British-based" company. Even if it's accurate that the "British-based" nature of City's owners is "not very noteworthy", then it obviously does not merit mention in the lead to the Wikipedia article for the club. In conclusion, the text in question cannot be substantiated by reliable sources and is in your words "not very noteworthy". It should obviously not be in the article then. Thenightaway (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: So I think you have a complete misunderstanding of the sentence and what it is referring to or you are deliberately mischaracterising it. Let me try to break it down for you. Manchester City Football Club is a British football club and company based in Manchester, it is owned by another company (as are several other football clubs around the world) City Football Group, also a British company based in Manchester. That company in turn is owned by another company Abu Dhabi United. All of that is explained in the article as company structure is relevant. It in no way obscures the ownership by Abu Dhabi, it simply lays out the structure in which they do that. Not all information in an article is noteworthy in and of itself. It is only the subject of the article that needs to be noteworthy. It could be argued that removing British based makes the article more deceptive because the assumption may be that City Football Group was based in Abu Dhabi (which it is not). I'll leave it there. You have not persuaded me of your case or reached consensus here, so please find consensus in another forum and leave the edit as is until you do so. There seems to be little point in me discussing with you on the topic further as it seems to me you are not acting with the intention of improving this article. I won't be engaging further in this forum unless other opinions are expressed by other editors. Paul  Bradbury 18:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  City are owned by a "British-based company"? 

message: Roy Paul (Club captain) was Welsh, not English JabiruvianJames (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Paul  Bradbury 20:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: good man JabiruvianJames (talk) 08:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roy Paul (Club captain) was Welsh, not English 

message: What’s that mean? Top ‘tier’ pls 148.252.147.120 (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: "top flight" is the standard British term for the top division of a league system. This article is about a British club and therefore according to Wikipedia rules it uses British English with British phrases. Falastur2 Talk 19:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top ‘flight’ 

message: Not put down 2018-19 League Cup and FA Cup double 31.94.0.147 (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  League Cup and FA Cup= double 

message: Change name from Man city to 115 Charges FC 2A04:4A43:52DF:D9B7:0:0:21A:5A64 (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: There's no reason to change the title. Annh07 (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2024 

message: Change season dates for easier read “having won four of them consecutively from 2021 to 2024” 81.78.159.204 (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Man City 4 in a row