Talk:Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan

Controversy Section

A single-purpose editor has repeatedly restored, misleading, deceptive, discredited and unsourced text in this section. It is poorly worded and clearly not written from a NPOV. Also potentially libellous sources are referenced from a journalist directly associated with the payment of a now convicted extortionist. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

You removed multiple paragraphs sourced to different reliable sources and covering different issues. It's unclear what is supposed to be misleading or unsourced. Thenightaway (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This section in its entirety is clearly prejudicial and references openly racist sources which are currently the subject of legal action.Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

What specifically is wrong and racist in the multiple RS that are cited? Thenightaway (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The entire section was recently created by an anonymous single purpose editor and seeks to damage the reputation of the article subject by referencing linked controversial articles which have been alleged to promote racist anti-Arab narratives and are currently the subject of legal challenge for that reason. I consider it vandalism and have removed it on those grounds. Please do not revert. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You've not identified a single instance of inaccurate info from the multiple RS that have been cited. You've not even substantiated that the sources are subject of legal action (which in and of itself does not mean the sources are inaccurate). Thenightaway (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia vandalism refers to the act of intentionally editing a Wikipedia page in a malicious manner to deceive or mislead readers and in this case involves defaming someone's character by harmful changes to the content through referencing inappropriate and unsubstantiated material which is also the subject of current legal action. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Why do you refuse to actually explain what is "inappropriate and unsubstantiated" in the content? At this point, you're WP:TENDENTIOUS. Thenightaway (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You are presumably unaware of the current Man City legal action against the PL involving the material referenced in the Times/Guardian which was obtained from the convicted extortionist Rui Pinto and exposed as wholly fabricated by CAS in 2022. Human Rights Watch & Amnesty have said absolutely nothing about Sheikh Mansour and the publicity stunt by the anonymous "Ukrainian activist" reported by Guardian is simply another example of the anti-Arab narrative created by US commercial rivals which has now been introduced into Wikipedia.

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The cited reliable sources 100% say that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty have described Sheikh Mansour's ownership of Man City as "sportswashing". You're straight-up lying about the content you're removing. You've provided no reliable sources to substantiate any of what you're saying and you've identified no specific sentences that contain inaccuracies. Thenightaway (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

As a Man City supporter with a conflict of interest I have withdrawn from this discussion but would welcome other editors' views on issues of Due Weight/NPOV both here and in other BOLP. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

It is impossible for this article to be malicious or harmful to the character of Sheikh Mansour when using such widely reported allegations and from well-respected organisations. You cannot plausibly claim that The Guardian, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are all 'racist' because they are reporting negative things about your owner.

Rui Pinto being a convicted hacker does not prejudice the documents he leaked to Der Spiegel. Many news organisations rely on material that was illegally obtained or detained through dubious means. This is a foundation of journalism and is why journalists do not reveal sources.

Rui Pinto was convicted of 'attempted extortion' for which he received a suspended sentence, and the trial was a litany of errors and criminal acts by those in charge of the investigation. ScouseSocialist (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, appreciate your take although it obviously challenges my own as a vintage Man City supporter - first game 1956!

I'm certainly not accusing the human rights groups of racism, they are 100% right to campaign against abuses and if you read their current reports about the UAE they acknowledge that progress is being made. Not so the Guardian, which features so prominently in the entry. Many of the articles cited are by founder members of their anti-Arab cabal of sports journos who have been gaslighting City’s owners since they took over the club in 2008.

They now complain that City are likely to 'get off' the current PL charges because we have the money to hire top lawyers to defend us. It seems not to have occurred to them that we might just have had the money to engage top lawyers to ensure we didn't breach the rules in the first place.

'MARTIN SAMUEL- CHIEF SPORTS WRITER: 'Hateful eight' step up war against Manchester City: This is not over. There is still a Premier League investigation into City

The truth is that the FFP regulations were specifically put in place by a legion of highly paid and skilled UEFA legal & accounting advisers enlisted by the cartel of elite ‘legacy’ clubs to stop us competing with them. This farce should have been dropped years ago when the identical UEFA version was shown to be a pack of lies, confected by thieves for the cartel. Rui Pinto, the Portugese extortionist was paid by The Times as well as Der Spiegel to hack City’s emails btw. The whole process since has been conducted in such a way that it's easy for hostile parasite media outlets and venal commercial rivals to smear us without the club being able to defend itself.

We've had five years now of frenzied and fundamentally mendacious coverage, in which even issues such as the CAS verdict have been presented by the media with implacable dishonesty. Now, if it does turn out that there's evidence not yet publicly available to indicate that City are guilty of some of the more serious charges against us, then fine - we'll be punished accordingly and will deserve it. The point is that the media, in the utmost bad faith, wants us convicted irrespective of whether the evidence justifies it - utterly deplorable in its sickening chicanery.

There is literally nothing whatsoever in circulation that remotely points to the charges even constituting a case to answer - and yet I have not seen a single article that raises that as an issue. Not one, the whole of the MSM accepts the charges as being meritorious without even knowing a single thing about their substance or merit.

The US owned club cartel and its client media  have deliberately created a febrile atmosphere in which all hell will break loose if the proceedings don't end with City expelled from the PL or, at the very least, suffering a severe points deduction. It's shameful given the absence of  facts about the PL case  currently in the public domain. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a textbook case of WP:RGW... You can't base your edits on a pet conspiracy theory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

My edits have been solely based on duplication of material giving undue weight to its significance.

Also your assessment of my comments as 'a pet conspiracy theory' is hardly of 'diplomacy barnstar' standard, frankly it's just offensive. I expected much better, perhaps you've just run out of cogent objections.

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

To attract the opinions of uninvolved experienced editors, I have now mentioned this discussion at WP:BLPN. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• (here as a result of the BLPN post) @Horatius At The Bridge: can you elaborate on the issue you see here? Try as I might I can't see how the removed text was "misleading, deceptive, discredited and unsourced" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  The section I removed duplicated content in the rest of article giving it undue weight in terms of NPOV as a consequence. All the claims citing alleged wrongdoing together with their sources remain on the page even though I consider them baseless for the reasons already explained above.

  Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Well now I'm a little confused... Was it removed because it was duplicative/undue or was it removed because it was "misleading, deceptive, discredited and unsourced"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

In my view the duplicated material was (and remains in the original text) as I described it in your quote but the removal of the Controversy Section was because it repeated that existing content giving undue weight.

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok so it looks like there are three paragraphs in the controversy section... One about sportswashing, one about an unpublished UEFA report, and one about the Ukraine-Russia conflict... Where can I find this in the rest of the article? I see some of the Ukraine-Russia conflict source, but what we have is about older stuff not strictly duplicative of what is in that section. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

"Human rights groups and other critics have characterized Sheikh Mansour's sports investments as sportswashing to improve the image of the UAE amid its controversial human rights record."

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/nov/11/manchester-city-owners-accused-sportswashing-gulf-image

"In October 2022, whilst Mansour’s tenure as deputy prime minister, he was accused of helping Roman Abramovich and other wealthy Russian oligarchs evade sanctions during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. He was described as being “central” to the flow of sanctioned Russian assets to the UAE."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/01/manchester-city-owner-could-investigated-helping-roman-abramovich/

"A billionaire, through City Football Group he holds stakes in a variety of football clubs, including Manchester City FC."

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/sep/13/manchester-city-accounts-sheikh-mansour Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The first is in the lead. The second two don't actually seem to cover the same ground. You would appear to be mistaken. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

It's my opinion that they do cover exactly the same ground and am puzzled what you think I appear to be mistaken about.

You asked about the whereabouts in the article of the three issues duplicated in the Controversy Section which I then referenced: 1) Sportswashing, 2) Ukraine 3) UEFA Report - the subject of which was benefactor funding accounted as sponsorship as per the article cited.

Please explain your comment "don't actually seem to cover the same ground". What ground is not covered?

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Lets go one at a time. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, that means that anything in the lead should also be in the article... Something being in both the lead and the article is not duplicative, its actually required. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't appreciated that, thanks for the heads up, it's most helpful. Allegations of 'sportswashing' don't seem to have been made about Sheikh Mansour's other sporting investments in horseracing and F1. On the contrary, his involvement in those industries has generally been warmly welcomed along with CFG's decade long economic regeneration of east Manchester. The related comment and source should properly therefore be moved to the Ownership of MCFC Section.

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe that *all* of the Emirati investments in this context are sportswashing, sources generally lay it out as a systemic effort. I think instead we should restore the paragraph you removed and possibly expand it... There is a ton of available coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

With respect that is simply not true. I repeat, the 'sportswashing' trope has only been associated with the acquisition of MCFC and there is no evidence presented in the article to the contrary. It would be helpful if you can provide a single ounce of proof to support your claim about 'a ton of available coverage' that his investments in F1 or horseracing have been included in those accusations. The final comment about restoring and possibly expanding the duplicated material is very disappointing but not surprising in the light of your earlier false assertions.

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand, I am talking about coverage of the material in the removed paragraph. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Afraid, I don't understand. This is the only text on the subject which I removed:

"The Sheikh has received a lot of criticism because of human rights issues in the UAE. He and his club have been accused of sportswashing."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mansour_bin_Zayed_Al_Nahyan&oldid=1206454886#Controversy

What would restoring and/or expanding this achieve?

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It would achieve WP:DUEWEIGHT. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

That is simply not the case, it would clearly achieve UNDUE WEIGHT as duplication.

"Human rights groups and other critics have characterized Sheikh Mansour's sports investments as sportswashing to improve the image of the UAE amid its controversial human rights record.[10][11][12] "The Sheikh has received a lot of criticism because of human rights issues in the UAE. He and his club have been accused of sportswashing."

Your proposal makes no sense at all.

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

That is in the lead, what is in the lead is supposed to also be in the body of the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in the lead, this has already been discussed. The inaccurate sentence was inserted there by @nightaway only 3 days ago for the first time since the article was created in 2012.The media term 'sportswashing' itself was coined a decade after Sheikh Mansour bought MCFC.

WP:BLPSTYLE "Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events. Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking."

MOS:BLPLEAD"The lead section should summarise the life and works of the person with due weight. When writing about controversies in the lead section of a biography, relevant material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves. These concerns are especially pressing for biographies of living persons.Well-publicized recent events affecting a subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most noteworthy: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each.

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 10:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

And yet you want to suppress the relevant material and fail to summarize? I don't understand. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Clearly not if you believe the Sheikh bought MCFC anticipating it would assist the UAE in deflecting criticism from its human rights record a decade later.

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

We go by coverage, not by what we think. If you think that the coverage is the result of a grand "racist anti-Arab" conspiracy theory against the subject you will need to provide a source which says that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Simple logic is all that's needed to reject the absurd claim that Sheikh Mansour's acquisition of Man City in 2008 is an example of "Sportwashing".

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Not really... On the theoretical side wikipedia isn't about what is "true," its about what is verifiable. Thats means that you either need to have a source which disagrees with the reliable sources or you need to get the community to agree that those reliable sources aren't actually reliable (on WP:RSN if there is an existing consensus). To quote V "content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid when a baseless media narrative is mistaken as consensus and allowed to trump common sense Wikipedia is the loser as well as Man City.

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

That is in theory one of out weaknesses, we are only ever able to be the followers of the facts and narratives that other's publish. Overall I don't think thats a bad thing, either for Wikipedia or for Man City. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

By their fruits ye shall know them.

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Have you ever stopped to consider that your presence here on this page is the fruit of sportswashing? Its hard to imagine you would be editing this page if not for the acquisition of your beloved team by the article's subject. Why do people use sportswashing? Because it works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

It didn't though did it? Simply a gratuitous slur on the owner of currently the most successful football club on the planet. The economic rivals of City just substituted the term for 'financial doping' in their interminable 'cheating oil club' narratives. Those US hedge fund owned clubs need an early profit return & can't compete with our long term investment model so they resort to confected reputational damage on steroids - lots of redshirt fan clicks for journos recycling their anti City propaganda, the currency of success in that profession these days.

The UK media lost interest in the sportwashing fiction a long time ago though - moving on to exploit a similarly ridiculous "115 charges" fabrication. Its inevitable rejected outcome in two years time doesn't matter, they just need to feed their fanbases the myth that their failure and City's success is the result of dirty deeds.

Incidentally, the WP sportswashing entry prominently references in its overview the same piece of pathetic trademark proven nonsense from the Guardian in 2019 as linked on here. It complains about our £7m Arabtec sponsorship but no mention anywhere of Fly Emirates continuing deals for ten times the amount with Arsenal FC, the prime mover of the 'cheat' agenda along with Man Utd & Liverpool. [1] (These 3 clubs aren't 'foreign-owned' of course, the USA doesn't feature in the criteria for that wiki section despite regularly appearing above the UAE on the Human Rights Watch table of worst offenders.)

Our owners haven't ever bothered to respond to any of these attacks beyond brief statements of total rejection. The fans have got used to them too over the last 13 years but it's a shame WP has now been tainted - as you say the price of its consensus approach but I would add also some uncritical editing. Both my 'beloved' football club and our beloved WP may have their faults but deserve better than some of the content in these entries.

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The problem you're having seems to be that it isn't proven nonsense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I can only presume you're a Guardian subscriber who still believes Neville Cardus is their cricket correspondent. A lobotomised amoeba has more insight than the author of the article in question, have you actually read it? Every single allegation made against City in that tissue of mendacious absurdity has been proven utterly false.

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't actually follow soccer. You might find this article interesting "From whataboutery to obfuscation: How fans legitimise sports washing"[2], I hope some day you understand that you are a useful idiot in this situation and are being used. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

An extraordinary find, thank you for bringing it to my attention. I will investigate the article, its sources and its authors before commenting further. It's a pity you do not follow football, if you did know a little more about the game I suspect our exchange would be rather different.

Just for the record on the origin of sportswashing in the media: "A search of the Nexis UK database indicates that the term first appeared in relation to a sporting event in 2015 when the human rights campaigner, Gulnara Akhundova, wrote an article for the UK Independent newspaper criticizing the fact that the European Games, a high-profile athletics event, were being held in Baku, Azerbijan, despite the country's poor human rights record (Akhundova, 2015). Previous to this, the term had only been used in relation to the marketing of a deodorant and, indeed, it disappeared again for a further two years, before in 2018, sportswashing re-emerged with something of a vengeance in relation to a whole host of sporting events."[3]

Finally, this is the second occasion on which you have chosen to be rude, referencing an offensive term within WP does not excuse its use WP:UNCIVIL but I'll give you an opportunity to apologise before considering further action.

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thats a decent source. Have you noticed that the article seems to treat the characterization as the opposite of "mendacious absurdity has been proven utterly false." They surely don't seem to treat it as the work of someone with less insight than a "A lobotomised amoeba"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Decent source? Here is its principal author in a podcast about the article. Difficult to imagine a more culturally prejudiced monologue or indeed a more incoherent one. Turns out it's actually the product of a group of Liverpool FC supporting university students, about as suitable for an objective study as the views from a City fans forum they used as research.

As one of them put it: "Should City fans back an owner who has invested long term in the club, hired the best executives and team coach in the business, enabled them to turn the club from indebted also rans to serial winners, a commercial giant, with a state of the art training facility, best in class youth section, a bunch of thriving franchises, an extended stadium and transformed local infrastructure? Not forgetting that we are now supporting the reigning English, European and World champions.

Or should we back the financial regulations brought in by the sports governing body with the clear intention of suppressing competition for a cartel of self entitled legacy clubs?

Not a tough choice for most City fans."

and another

Tin-pot journalists: "City is just a tool for sportswashing"

City fans: "I think sportswashing is bollocks because nobody had ever heard of Sheik Mansour before and now everyone thinks he's a cunt"

Tin-pot journalists: "there!!! Sportswashing in action!!!! We told you it worked!!"

and finally this thoughtful response

"I'm just reading the introduction, and the name "Delaney" was referenced in two separate sources. Nah, it can't be. This is a proper academic article. Yep, there are two references to Miguel Delaney's articles in the Independent.

In fact the opening paragraph of the introduction is a cracker. It contains one reference to an Amnesty International report (which is a legitimate academic source), two references to articles in the Independent, one Athletic article, and one Forbes piece. Elsewhere in the research, we have the Guardian and New York Times referenced, as well as Human Rights Watch, which is actually a Washington Post article. There is nothing wrong with using media citations in particular circumstances (e.g. if you're trying to demonstrate prevailing media trends), but they are citing them as if they're factual, academic sources. As someone who is currently undergoing a research methods module in advance of my master's dissertation, we have been repeatedly warned about what is and isn't a legitimate academic source. Hell, even in my undergraduate degree we were warned against using magazines and newspapers as sources, so how an academic, presumably teaching at a university can get away with citing newspaper opinion pieces to this extent is beyond me. Maybe education research has more rigorous standards than the sociology of sport.

Let's carry on:

"The club's financial dealings had previously been sanctioned by European football governing body, UEFA, but those charges were overturned by the Court of Arbitration for Sport in July 2020 on the basis of a statute of limitations."

Not true. Some of those charges were overturned on the basis of the statute of limitations. The majority were overturned on the basis of the evidence presented. No citation given, and it's not like the judgement is hard to find. So far, not looking good.

"It is a strategy that has attracted criticism from several prominent human rights groups, who view it as a major cause for concern (see Amnesty International, 2020; Worden, 2022)."

'Several' claimed but only two cited - and neither are studies into the amount of criticism that human rights groups have given, they are just two examples of human rights groups that have criticised it. I don't really have much of a quibble with the claim itself, but it's just bad scholarship to make a claim and not back it up with proper academic sources.

"While sportswashing attracts scrutiny and criticism of such violations, its aim is that this negative attention will be ultimately outweighed by the positive associations accrued (Delaney, 2020)."

While you could forgive the use of limited non-academic sources in the introduction as just setting the scene, this appears in the literature review. Miguel Delaney, who has done no independent, peer reviewed research into the matter, is cited as if he has. Actually, I assume it's Miguel Delaney. It turns out that this citation (Delaney, 2020) doesn't actually appear in the references list, despite appearing again later in the article. Just to mention, this article has nine authors from three universities. How is this sort of thing not being caught?

"Notably, several sport journalists have attested to instances of fans of a sportswashed club aggressively defending their ownership regimes via social media and other online platforms (Cohen, 2021)."

No context given, no comparison to 'non-sportswashed' clubs. Presented as if City are a special case. Are journalists not getting abuse from fans of Man Utd? Arsenal? Liverpool? Almost certainly. But again, a single source from a newspaper is given. The other source in the previous sentence makes no mention of sportswashing and gives a far more balanced view of the situation regarding online abuse, not singling out individual clubs.

By the start of the methodology stage, I'm not sure they demonstrate that Sheikh Mansour (who they don't actually mention themselves at any point) and the ADUG are engaging in sportswashing rather than old-fashioned investment. It's not even a question they consider.

Their train of logic is:

UAE has a bad human rights record > City are owned by ADUG > ADUG are owned by UAE royalty > sportswashing exists as a concept > City are sportswashed

Essentially sportswashing is an accusation about their motivations, yet other possible motivations are never explored at any point, and sportswashing is just assumed. The idea that it's a legitimate business investment is never brought up. There have been multiple other theories for Sheikh Mansour's investment, even amongst those who have a problem with it. Firstly, that it's not a serious investment, and it's just a billionaire's plaything (he'll get bored any minute). And secondly, and more credibly, that owning Manchester City makes it easier for him to make various other property investments in the UK. And finally, the argument that owning a football club is a status symbol among the ultra rich that leads to various opportunities. Kinda like how billionaires will buy newspapers even if it costs them money, a lot will buy sports teams because of the cultural capital it affords. None of these are explored, the motivation is just assumed. And this means the entire rest of the study is built entirely on a massive assumption that most City fans don't necessarily share.

The biases of City fans are addressed at length, but the biases of the journalists (not academics, remember) that they cite are not. Football journalists are football fans, usually of rival clubs. The best ones might try to be impartial, but they also have a clear financial incentive to be as sensationalist as possible. They have little to no oversight when it comes to the factual credibility of their claims. And that's why it's not a good idea to based a significant portion of an academic study on their work. I've genuinely never read an academic study that has so many citations from newspapers.

There's a basic irony in the methodology section, in that they use a legitimation framework to categorize the messages from City fans into how they legitimize the club's position, but they seemingly fail to apply the same scrutiny to their own views about our owners' actions. Ours is seen as 'legitimizing the status' of the club, whereas theirs, with no reflection whatsoever, is seen as an accurate appraisal of the facts. They also don't go into what each of the nine authors did, so I'm still not sure why it took nine people to write. They also don't go into a great deal of depth about how posts were chosen for inclusion in the study.

The findings contain absolutely no suggestion that City fans might be making legitimate points. As evidenced in the introduction, where they think that City got off at CAS because it was time-barred, they show little knowledge of the wider debates in football. In the context of City being cleared by an independent arbitration court, City fans are accused of trying to "absolve MCFC of allegations of financial impropriety." There is no consideration that such views are legitimate conclusions of fans who have seen their club accused and cleared before. Having presented sportswashing as the sole possibility for Sheikh Mansour's purchase of the club, they then go on to present the opinions of City fans on the forum as some sort of delusional groupthink that bears no relation to reality. The idea that buying City could be a legitimate business decision is dismissed without discussion, despite the off field success of the club being widely reported.

This phrase in particular is bollocks: "The club's vast wealth is tacitly framed as proof of, and reward for, its administrative and footballing excellence, rather than as an advantage which facilitates the achievement of this excellence."

Literally every City fan will tell you (on here) that success breeds money, which creates a virtuous circle. In fact, one of the biggest criticisms most City fans have is how all of the wealth is concentrated at the top of the game, making success a self-fulfilling prophecy, and harming the competitiveness of the game. That's been one of the main criticisms of FFP in the first place.

"The success and expertise of MCFC's hierarchy is based on the premise – implicit in some comments and explicitly discussed in others – of a meritocratic football economy, wherein the cream naturally rises to the top."

Again, absolutely bollocks, unless you're cherry-picking in the extreme. Every City fan recognises that money is necessary for success in football. But equally, it's undeniable that the hierarchy at City have done a good job, when you compare them to teams spending similar amounts. The idea that you could read significant numbers of posts from City fans and come to the conclusion that City fans think football is a meritocracy is hilarious. Every criticism of FFP is a criticism that it allows the already rich clubs to spend more than everyone else. City fans overwhelmingly believe this even though their club is now the main beneficiary of it. And when our club signed up for the European Super League, they were met with almost universal disgust from City fans.

"Elsewhere, users tacitly concede a degree of perilous escalation to the distorting effects of money within the game, but depict this as initiated by MCFC's competitors who are now reaping what they have sown in being overtaken within the ruthless world of modern football."

Absolutely, but is that not true? Again, it's presented as a delusion of City fans trying to justify the sportswashing of their evil owners, rather than a genuine opinion based on the facts.

Another issue not really addressed is how little of this has anything to do with sportswashing and the ownership. Attacking the FA, UEFA, and sports journalists? Do the same study on any fan forum in the country, and you'll likely see the same results. That's the nature of football fandom. It's openly tribal, and that's the point of it. Yet in our case, it's presented as an explicit defence of our owners in the full knowledge that they only own the club to launder their human rights abuses. This is never actually established in the article though, and so what you have is nine people spending an inordinate amount of time to show that football fans might be a bit biased.

I mean I know this will be characterised as another City fan aggressively attacking critics of the club as I 'rationalize the immoral,' but I've just spent the best part of this academic year being forced to critically evaluate shite academic articles, and this one makes so many basic errors that it's hard to take it seriously. I mean it doesn't even contain a 'limitations' section, which is the most basic aspect of a reflective piece of work, and mirrors the lack of reflection and criticality throughout the rest of the article. It's a hit piece masquerading as an academic article.

There you go, Kearns et al. That can go in the 'delegitimization' section of your next journal article. Hopefully you include a few more academic sources and a few less newspaper sources in your next one."

All beautifully put. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) (UTC)

Where is that large section of copyvivo from? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC

Should the article about Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan describe, in its lead section and at least one paragraph of the rest of the article, sportswashing accusations against the article subject? Should it specifically contain the content added in [4]? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Support: I came in via WP:RFC/A, FYI. I think the information in the diff should be added, it has the proper sources as per WP:V. I'd sign off verbatim on the part in the lead section and would suggest a bit more of a clinical and disinterested tone for the stuff in the ownership section.

On a more behavioral note; I'd suggest editors who don't believe the accusations and other less favorable information about subject to read WP:TRUTH and find reliable sources that meet the requirements stated in WP:RS and add that to the article. I can't support adding stuff just for the sake of adding counterbalance or a concern for WP:NPOV without reliable sources to back it up.

Lastly, I'd urge everyone to stay respectful, to keep in mind what the goal is here on enwiki, and to keep the discussion on the talk in line with WP:TALK. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not venting your feelings about it. ConcurrentState (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Concerns about duplicative content in the lead seem misplaced as it's the purpose of the lead to summarize the content in the article itself and to provide an overview as per MOS:LEAD.

Concerns about the veracity of allegations have no place here beyond referencing reliable sources that have an opposing view. Even then, it's essential to be mindful of majority and minority views and dedicate parts of the article accordingly. A denial by the subject often doesn't get more than "X denies these allegations" because, while it warrants mentioning, it can't be considered a reliable source for much beyond that.

In short, if you have reliable sources that support your doubts, you're free to add them and their views as far as I'm concerned, but anything else would fall under WP:NOR.

Remember, we're merely scribes who document what happens outside Wiki, not truth finders or adjudicators of fact.

As for the remark about WP:BLPSTYLE: Note the part that says, "Summarize how actions […] are characterized by reliable sources." While I agree that the part under ownership can be improved by using a bit more clinical and dispassionate language (see my RfC comment in support above), it merits inclusion under WP:BLPSTYLE.

ConcurrentState (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: From RfC. I don't think that it should be added to the lead section, but rather in a section called "Human rights accusations". ☆SuperNinja2☆ 06:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose The new sentence inserted last week in the lead section is duplicative of content already elsewhere in the article giving it undue weight. The 2019 'Sportswashing' allegations (a media term first coined in 2018) about Sheikh Mansour's acquisition of Man City in 2008 were clearly anachronistic and as such baseless in any case.)

WP:BLPSTYLE "Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events. Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking."

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Again... What is in the lead is not duplicative of what is in the body in a way that is bad. Its not a contentious label and it hasn't been applied to a person. It isn't loaded language and it doesn't lack precision. Reliable sources commonly describe this situation that way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, the recent addition of this sentence at the end of the lead section "Human rights groups and other critics have characterized Sheikh Mansour's sports investments as sportswashing to improve the image of the UAE amid its controversial human rights record" is both inaccurate and adds undue weight by singling out an ill-founded claim, already referenced in the appropriate ownership section, by duplicating it. The other investments in F1 and horseracing have never been so characterised. A sole article from 2019 is cited about the ownership of MCFC, which the Sheikh bought in 2008 a decade before the media term 'sportswashing' was even invented.

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Its not a media term, its an academic term. Sportswashing comes out of the same theoretical discourse as pinkwashing and greenwashing Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Wrong again I'm afraid. Just for the record on the origin of sportswashing is as a media term not academic (you missed out 'Veganwashing' which is btw) : "A search of the Nexis UK database indicates that the term first appeared in relation to a sporting event in 2015 when the human rights campaigner, Gulnara Akhundova, wrote an article for the UK Independent newspaper criticizing the fact that the European Games, a high-profile athletics event, were being held in Baku, Azerbijan, despite the country's poor human rights record (Akhundova, 2015). Previous to this, the term had only been used in relation to the marketing of a deodorant and, indeed, it disappeared again for a further two years, before in 2018, sportswashing re-emerged with something of a vengeance in relation to a whole host of sporting events."[3]

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Support, NPOV doesn't give us an option other than to cover it and NPOV is not negotiable (the only actual question is whether both body and lead or just body)... By definition it isn't possible to substitute editors personal opinions for what reliable sources report. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Exactly so, the reference already exists in the article despite being an isolated, loaded & prejudicial allegation. To duplicate it in the lead section gives undue weight.

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 09:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

And your reliable source which calls the allegations "isolated, loaded & prejudicial" would be what? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Support. The content in question has extensive coverage in diverse high-quality reliable sources over a long time period, as well as by well-known human rights organizations, such as Amnesty and Human Rights Watch. Thenightaway (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

That assertion is simply not true. The only article cited is from 2019 written by a long disappeared Guardian stringer. It is impossible to argue that the Sheikh bought the club in 2008 anticipating it would deflect attention from the UAE's human rights record a decade later when the term 'sportswashing" was first invented. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Weak support I don't oppose a summarized version of this content in the body of the article, but it seems a little undue for the lead. This is certainly part of the story the ownership of the club, but so are successes of the club since the takeover. A few sentences about the controversy in the body of the article are fine for now. Nemov (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Lack of balance re. investment motivation

In the interest of balance shouldn't this article reference the fact that mansour's investment in manchester city has been very successful from a business perspective? At the moment it presents a single perspective on the motivation for investment but ignores the fact that he has seen a very healthy return on his investment. His motivations may be many fold but to ignore the fact it has been a very successful business venture (per Forbes and other multiple sources) seems very partial? The alternative would be to remove any reference to motivations for the investment. 2A02:C7C:30F6:3900:E53E:292A:E973:833C (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree 100%, pointed out earlier that his later investments in F1 and Horseracing were warmly welcomed by the sports concerned and subject to no such criticism.

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I could see some WP:RSOPINION issues unless it's widely deemed successful by multiple reliable sources or unless you stick to uncontroversial facts such as "made X in profit", "had a Y ROI", etc.

But even without that, it's not the end of the world as long as you use inline attribution "John Smith from Forbes says 'blah blah super successful'". Not sure if it's suitable as a counter for the allegations, but it could certainly be suitable for mentioning as a general accomplishment.

So if you think there are enough reliable sources that support that narrative be WP:BOLD. Just be mindful of the wiki guidelines and avoid WP:PUFF cruft.

Alternatively, you can also always present your draft on the talk page so people can provide feedback and make sure it adheres to the guidelines. ConcurrentState (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

There has been no attempt in any cited article source (or in this TP discussion) to counter the obvious objection to allegations of MCFC being an example of 'sportswashing' i.e. it entails the scarcely believable implication that the purchase in 2008 anticipated a need to deflect attention from Abu Dhabi's human rights record more than a decade later when it first came under critical scrutiny and indeed the term itself was invented. [5]

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

We're not in the business of WP:NOR (nor the admonishment of lack of coverage by well established sources).

Either there are reliable sources that cover that POV that can be included, or there aren't. Lamenting about the lack of coverage isn't suitable for a talk page, see WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAPBOX. ConcurrentState (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

That's exactly my point, there are no reliable sources because the claim is demonstrably a complete fiction.

The 'sportswashing' term has been weaponized by Man City's economic rivals (a cartel of failing formerly elite legacy clubs owned by US hedge funds) in their continuing attempts to destroy a competitor.

WP is simply being used as just another media tool for inflicting reputational damage to that end and our rules allow it to happen. It's a serious problem, maybe Mr Wales should have another look at the issues.

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 08:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's the thing... If thats true we can add it to the article, we can say that "The term 'sportswashing' has been weaponized by Man City's economic rivals" but we would need a reliable source which supports that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The point is that the term has clearly been anachronistically weaponized and is therefore incoherent. As such it should be omitted from the lead WP:NPOV but retained in the MCFC section reflecting past inaccurate usage.

In any case Sportswashing is simply a form of Propaganda as acknowledged in its lead para and should properly be merged into that article as is currently proposed. (Although it should be noted that Sheikh Mansour does not feature at all in that extensive entry.)

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 10:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)