Talk:Liberty Global/Archives/2018

UK company
Hi everyone,

Can we please make this article a more accurate reflection of the sources? Wikipedia is going against the grain when it describes LG as an American company with "Denver" as the sole or even main HQ. A huge number of reliable sources (including LG's own website) either list multiple HQs with London first, or simply give "London" as the location of Liberty Global. That latter category includes the Forbes entry cited in the lead, as well as LG's own profiles on LinkedIn and Twitter. I can give citations for the company being based in London that come from the BBC, the New York Times, and the Globe and Mail, which are all more recent than the single citation given in the infobox for "Denver".

I know the nationality of major corporations is often an emotive issue, but citing one Denver Post story to justify "Denver" is not a neutral reflection of reliable sources. It's effectively cherry-picking a single anomalous source that says what someone wanted the infobox to show, while ignoring more recent sources - some with far higher Alexa rankings, or official links to the company itself - that say something different. Scanning the Denver Post article, I'm not even 100% clear that the author is talking about the company's official global HQ, rather than their US HQ (which I think had recently moved to Denver) and de facto operational HQ. We should reflect the fact that LG is a multinational company and come up with a brief but fair summary of the sources.

I don't want to edit the main page on my phone, but I'll return when I get chance to make some hopefully uncontroversial changes. I don't think anyone should object if we describe LG as "US-founded" in the opening, which is factually correct, rather than "American", which no longer has consensus from reliable sources (far from it!!).

Nor do I think anyone could object if I put all three HQs in the infobox, in their "official" order (i.e., the order that LG always uses in their official material). Again, this is just following the sources.

In the lead and infobox, I personally see no reason to describe the nationality of the company beyond saying where it was founded (US) and listing the current HQs in the order given by reliable sources. So, if anyone doesn't like the sound of that, please assume noble intentions and join a discussion here :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.235.245 (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

...actually, googling for sources, I think my initial position was too soft.

Two months after the Denver Post citation, I've got a citation of Liberty Global CEO Mike Fries stating: "Liberty Global is a UK plc."

So:

- The CEO of Liberty Global openly states that Liberty Global is a UK company; - On their website, Liberty Global lists their London address first (then US, then Netherlands); - On Twitter and LinkedIn, Liberty Global give their location as "London"; - Numerous current, high quality sources (e.g., Forbes, BBC, New York Times) describe Liberty Global as a London- or UK-based company.

I know the situation is murkier than that because Liberty Global was founded in the US and remains listed on the NASDAQ, but simply stating that "Liberty Global is an American company" and putting "Denver" as the sole HQ is not an honest representation of reliable sources. Because Wikipedia is so ubiquitous, a lot of people will be exposed to those statements (e.g., if they google Liberty Global). I'm not going to change anything till I've got time to pull the sources together, but my proposed wording for the opening is:

''Liberty Global plc is an international telecommunications and television company. It was formed in 2005 in the US by the merger of the international arm of Liberty Media and UGC (UnitedGlobalCom). It is now a UK public limited company with headquarters in London, Denver and the Netherlands, traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market.''

...with ample citations throughout, and all three HQs in the infobox.

I don't think you can say fairer than that. It's a concise, honest description of the company, and every part of it is supported by multiple reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.252.129.196 (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * @148.252.129.196: I would support the proposed change! --Krinkle (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Mike Fries
The article about the CEO does not have enough notability to be a stand alone, but some information can be salvaged for a merge with the company he works for. 2Joules (talk) 07:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll add here for historical record that BDavidoff1984 (creator of the Mike Fries article) seems to disagree with the proposed merge, stating (diff): "While Mike Fries is affiliated with Liberty, details of history as a public figure/exec shouldn't be integrated with Liberty's Wikipedia entry".
 * I'll respond by stating that I agree the Liberty Global article should not contain (much) detail about Mike Fries. However, as 2Joules points out above, the subject "Mike Fries" might not pass notability guidelines. In that case, this article would be deleted. Some of the statements about Fries that relate to Liberty Global could be added to Liberty Global (if not already stated there). --Krinkle (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)