Talk:FC Barcelona

Archives

1

Comment

the players list has Iker Cassilas named as the captain and Goalkeeper. this is a mistake. Yes the goalkeeper is victor valdes and not iker casillas!!

Edit request --The Kit 21 Febuary 2011

The kit section needs to be updated as it only mentions about the kit colours coming from Merchant Taylors Boys, not where this actually is. Merchant Taylors Boys school in a privately educated school that is located in Crosby, Liverpool, England.

Small point

What the article calls a "crest" is actually a coat of arms, though it can variously be called a shield or escutcheon as well. Not very germane to the subject, but a technical inaccuracy that should nonetheless be corrected. 50.82.206.136 (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

FC Barcelona are Spain's most popular team.

Acording to a recent survey carried by AS (A madrid-based newspaper), Barcelona is spain's most popular team with 41% of the population voting for the catalans.

Source: http://www.as.com/futbol/articulo/espana-pasa-madrid-barcelona/20111010dasdaiftb_3/Tes

Could you please edit the article and add "Spain's most popular team"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.88.113 (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no way that you can just say that they are "Spain's most popular" team without caveats such as "a survey by AS in 2011 said that..." There are different ways of presenting who is most popular. Is it just the highest number of people who claim to be fans, fans less people who hate them, number of people who admire the club, the way they play, etc? "Most popular" is a bit too much of a vague and peacock-y term to be included, in my opinion. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If the article says that FCB is Spains most popular team, then you can add that FCB is spain most popular team. If its sourced, it can be added. Sandman888 (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Lol, one could easily source the exact opposite. -Koppapa (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Successful?

Can I aks you why you are removing information that is correct? What is there exactly to discuss regarding the trophies? There was a consensus before until you decided to interfere. This has been discussed for weeks until we found a primary source (in a Spanish newspaper) and there after came into a agreement. This agreement (that both FC Barcelona and Real Madrid have 74 official overall trophies) is backed up by both the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia page about both clubs.

What is there to discuss? It is like discussing how many La Liga titles each club has won or Champions League titles which would be pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitcivil133 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I've told you at least three times, take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#"Most successful Spanish club". You're just peacocking and it's not to be done. Period. Simple. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Peacocking? You are the one who is changing correct information without any reason or backing whatsoever. You are also still not able to explain why you disagree (in fact it is impossible, since it is very clear for all to see how many trophies a club has won).

And yes, I have already written there but I do not expect any change. That is why I am writing here which I am allowed to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitcivil133 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You should really read the welcome message on your talk page. It talks about the basics, one if which is sign your comments. The bot keeps reminding you. Since you can't understand that thing I doubt you'll understand this either, but I'll give it a try.

WP:PEACOCK. Read it and you should understand and the discussion is over. Don't (read or understand) and you may carry on this discussion on your own. I will not be replying here only at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#"Most successful Spanish club". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment the bottom line is verifiability here. If you can find multiple reliable sources that agree that Barca is "the most successful" club then you can perhaps add a statement saying "they have been called the 'most successful club' ...". Otherwise "success" is utterly, purely and 100% subjective. And as such it should not be used in the article. Stick to bare facts. Stick to cup and league wins. And after all that, stop edit warring about it or I'll lock down the article. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not you want to reply or not is not my problem since you are not the only user here to judge what should be discussed or not. Apart from that the signature does not work for me for some reason. But this should not have any say regarding the understanding of my message.

Well my point is that both the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia pages (both languages that I speek) use the same exact formulation that was used before on the English version of FC Barcelonas Wikipedia page. When it says most successful it only refers to the number of overall trophies which also was very clear from the previous sentence. I don't see any bias in such a statement. It is precise and correct. It would be a completely different matter if I and others had (BTW I am not the one who wrote the sentence I defend now) written that FC Barcelona was the most successful club in the world. The previous sentence makes it very clear that it only refers to number of titles won in Spain and Europe. How can that not be a fact?

Here was the original sentence which was reached after a consensus among the most active editor's and which had stood for months.

"FC Barcelona is the joint most successful club in Spanish football in terms of domestic and overall trophies,[125] having won 21 La Liga, 25 Copa del Rey, 10 Supercopa de España, 3 Copa Eva Duarte[5] and 2 Copa de la Liga trophies, as well as being the record holder for the latter four competitions."

How can that be labled biased or factually wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitcivil133 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Sign your comments.
2. Take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#"Most successful Spanish club".
3. In short, it's peacocking. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Mascherano: defender

Is it time to change Mascherano's two-letter code to "DF" rather than "MF" in the squad section? None of his thirteen appearances this season have been in midfield, and Guardiola describes him as "the best centre back we have at the moment" (here). While he may have made his name as a midfielder, to list him as a Barcelona midfielder is basically inaccurate. Thoughts? --AlasdairShaw (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Isaac Cuenca

2011– Barcelona 3 (1) can not you see? (User talk:agelshan) 21 november

No I can't. Is he on the club's senior roster? That's what I was looking at. Feel free to add him back in. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 November 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The section on el Clasico refers to the European Champions league semi final of 2002 as being the most recent European encounter.

However the most recent European encounter was the semi final of 2011, which Barça won 3-1 on aggregate. The games were 2 of 4 matches played between the teams over the space of less than a month - once in La Liga, once in the Copa Del Rey final and 2 in the Champions League.

Ubedac (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".  Chzz  ►  07:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Nicknames

I speak catalan and read it as well and I noticed that in the nicknames one of them is "Culers or Culés (supporters)" but Culers does not mean supporters, it means "rear end" or (excuse my language) asses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.174.204 (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Francisco Franco financed the Camp Nou

Can someone please help me on this, so far ive see that he has financed the Camp Nou in a video but I cant seem to find any official website links to this. Thanks. RealCowboys (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No he did not finance Camp Nou, the stadium was paid for by bank loans which indebted the club, after several years under heavy debt Franco signed a document that allowed FC Barcelona to sell their land on which the old stadium had stood to pay of the debt. Franco did not give a single penny to the club. In fact you can argue for that he and his facist administration in Barcelona city hall by refusing to allow the club to sell their land and thereby destroying the competitive balance insted helped Real Madrid which coinsidently found themself without any competition, hence the ridiculous one team la liga of the 1960s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.60.11.22 (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Reference for this information would be ideal otherwise it's just misleading. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

FC Barcelona or Barcelona

Should FC Barcelona be called Barcelona or FC Barcelona in the Wikipedia article? I feel that the more correct name would be the full name of the club which is FC Barcelona.

What is the opinion about this matter?--Suitcivil133 (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It should be called Barcelona unless there is another professional team in the city. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. My question may not have been particularly precise but what I intended to ask about was whether we should use the full name FC Barcelona rather than just Barcelona.--Suitcivil133 (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said, it should be Barcelona unless there is another professional team in the city. The only time the full name should be used is in the lede. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It could have never been Franco himself but the Fascist government. Franco was a dictator but not a financier himself.--Suitcivil133 (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

As seen by the recent edits I would like to get an clarification in terms of whether FC Barcelona in fact has been the only European Club who has played continental football every season since 1955 or not?

That claim was listed on the Wikipedia page for months, if not years but without a reference until RealCowboys made a claim of it being not correct (That FC Barcelona was not the only club to do so). I personally don't know which claim is wrong or not but it would be good if we could get an clarification on this matter. But since the user RealCowboys already has an history of writing claims without any references I would like to get an reliable clarification--Suitcivil133 (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Find a reference of the former to restore it. Ideally, find a reference of the latter too. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I was not the one who initially made the claim nor was I the one who claimed the otherwise. If anyone should find a link it should be the person behind the claim and the person (RealCowboys) who claimed otherwise. I personally have not found information about this matter although I only made a quick search. That is also the reason why I bought this matter up for discussion.--Suitcivil133 (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Correction

According to both the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia page FC Barcelona are in fact the only team in Europe who has played continental football every season since 1955.

Unfortunately there is no direct claim but there must be something truth about this matter since both the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia claim it.

"El Fútbol Club Barcelona ostenta el récord de ser el único equipo de fútbol europeo que ha participado de forma ininterrumpida en las competiciones continentales desde su creación en 1955."

"El Barça és l'únic equip d'Europa que ha disputat sempre, des del 1955, alguna de les quatre competicions europees, l'únic club de la Lliga espanyola que ha aconseguit guanyar les tres competicions més importants el mateix any (Copa, Lliga i Lliga de Campions) la temporada 2008-2009, i el primer i únic equip de la història que ha assolit en un mateix any (2009) els 6 títols més importants (tres internacionals i tres estatals). L'equip de futbol ha guanyat 76 títols oficials, cosa que el converteix en l'equip amb més títols de l'estat espanyol.[7]"

So yet again, RealCowboys, provide us with a prove that your claim is the correct one or is yet again one of your untrue claims without any references we are witness to?--Suitcivil133 (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an accurate source so there is no truth at all in the article. If you find a link to a reliable source in any language, then that can be included. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you actually read what I wrote? I never said it was truth. What I said was that it is rather strange for me that both the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia page say the same. I am still waitin for the reply of RealCowboys to provide his proof of it not being truth.--Suitcivil133 (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Skimmed it, yes. The fact that every other Wikipedia and a few fan sites repeat the same thing doesn't make it at all reliable. If you have a WP:RS that backs this claim you would have a case. The burden of proof that something is not a fact is not on any editor. The burden of proof that something is a fact is on all editors. Anything that does not have a reference can be challenged and in extreme cases removed immediately. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I agree completely. What I am trying to say is that it was RealCowboys who deleted the claim because he said that it was untrue. So it it his role to prove why that is since he is the one who said it. As I mentioned intially it should obviously be delelted if proven wrong but I would like to know whether it is true or not and since he was the one who claimed that it was not, it is logical to conclude that he must have a source that confirms his view. I will try and find a link in English but I guess it will be dificult if even truth.--Suitcivil133 (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You have it completely backward. Anyone can remove anything for any reason without providing a reference. It can be restored though. What should have happened is that a citation needed should have been added and then we could have deleted the questionable content in a few months if no reference was found. Although I find the comment to be suspect and so didn't oppose its removal. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Completely backward? In what regard? If you make an statement in real life you are supposed to back that statement up with some proof especially if you determine the opposite opinion as false. I did not object to it being deleted. Read my initial posts. What I asked for was a simple clarification not who is right or wrong. But it does annoy me when people delete statements without providing proof of it being wrong. That's what I would have done and what I thought was common sense when editing anything here but I guess not. But let's leave if for now none of us two seems to know which claim is truth so I will leave it for others to short out if possible.--Suitcivil133 (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Completely backward in the way described above. There is no need to back-up a claim when removing material. Period. One may simply removal material and indicate that it's suspicious. However, the correct process should be to mark it with a citation needed tag and then remove it after some time has passed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz is entirely correct. As Wikipedia works on verifiability it is perfectly acceptable for unreferenced material to be removed. There is no requirement for falsehood to be proven. If something is verifiable it can stay, if not then it is perfectly legitimate for it to be removed, true or not. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

FC Barcelona realy has played every year of european competion since 1955 but it is a bit of a stupid claim to do. For example the first time the inter cities fairs cup was contested the cup lasted for three years. So the club played only a few games per year between 1955 to 1958. And then there are other teams that have played almost all seasons, Real Madrid missing one season, Glasgow Rangers missing two seasons and Porto and Benfica missing three seasons. So although it is true, one can argue fore leaving it out of the text. A source would be FIFA since UEFA don't recognize ICFC in their european records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.54.196.91 (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

^ Could you find the source that confirm that they have indeed played in European club competitions every season since 1955? Because then it should definetely be included. It is worth noticing, as the user Suitcivil133 have pointed out, that both the Catalan and Spanish Wikipedia page also confirm this. But so far I have not found and source in English.--Drivehonour1 (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

13 ouf of possible 16 titles in 3,5 year, domination or not?

In my humble opinion winning 13 titles ouf of possible 16 titles (which is an historic feat in a top league in Europe) during 3.5 years can be labeled as domination without being biased. The 3 titles that were not won, out of the 16 possible, was the CL in 2010 (where FC Barcelona was elimated against Inter FC under controversial circumstances in the semifinal), a Copa Del Rey exit against Sevilla in the quarterfinal and the Copa Del Rey final defeat against Real Madrid in 2011.

But personally I don't care what the headline will be but this RealCowboys (who have an history of being blocked and not behaving) should not delete information and lable it as false when the subject has been discussed and proven correct, or delete information on a rival football clubs Wikipedia page without any discussion before deleting it as he is biased. --Suitcivil133 (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a variety of verifiable reliable sources calling it a "dominance" then it should be no problem. Calling it a "dominance" otherwise is, as you say your "humble opinion"... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with The Rambling Man. I shouldn't have stepping into this as I did.

Also, please don't comment on an editor's behaviour when it's not relevant: his blocks were for personal attacks, not for editing unreliably. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless there's a source then 'domination' remains as POV. By way of comparison, the Arsenal team of 2003-04 can be described as 'the Invincibles' because there are plenty of sources referring to them as such - same goes for the Preston North End team of the late 1880s. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like there's general agreement that we need reliable sources before describing this as domination. In this case I only agree with the need for such sources because it is disputed by some. To my mind, this is, by definition, domination but, that being the case, it should not be hard to find appropriate sources. Longwayround (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Quoted by two administrators

• Without looking at anything else, "Football Domination" is not an appropriate section title, IMO. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, without looking at anything else, agree that "Football Domination" is not appropriate. (I've also again grouped these threads.) --RA (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As for "RealCowboys (who have an history of being blocked and not behaving) should not delete information and lable it as false when the subject has been discussed and proven correct, or delete information on a rival football clubs Wikipedia page without any discussion before deleting it as he is biased." In what way was me deleting "Football Domination" biased? The section title it self is biased, Any other succesful team could claim its self as "Football Domination", why I disagree with you is because your trying to justify that FC Barcelona is an unstopable team, did you know they lost againts Getafe? A lower rank team or they couldnt defeat Espanol? Another lower rank team? I would imagine that if they did dominate they would be on top when in fact as of right now they and currently in second. Im going to tell you one more time, DO NOT refer or mention me in any of your juvenile post. If you have a problem use the talk page without using another editors name. RealCowboys (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Stop the trash-talk. Keep the discussion neutral. In short Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic.
2. You can't prevent people from discussing you on talk pages, provided that it's done in a neutral way.
3. Stating that a term is biased and not appropriate is not the same as saying that it's not true. I agree that 13 of 16 cups is very dominating play. Now we only need a reference or two to confirm it. And dominating does not mean unstoppable, only that they did extremely well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

First off, you dont tell me what to do, just because your some "editor" that likes to snitch out alot doesnt make you better then anyone here. "You can't prevent people from discussing you on talk pages, provided that it's done in a neutral way." In what neutral way is that? By calling me biased, by pulling out my previous entries and typing "RealCowboys (who have an history of being blocked and not behaving)" no thats not nuetral at all. But if I so as react then surprisingly I get reported and from who? YOU. Grow up, I dont care if you older then me I dont care if your more literal or punctual, you say you try to follow wikipedia guide lines yet you act like a douchebag to me. Using "Football Domination" is a biased way of putting it, yes they did extremely well but theres no need for POV remarks, Real Madrid was in terms "Football Domination" back in the 50's and 60's yet theres no need to showcase them in the sense they were powerful. So go ahead and report me for calling you a douchebag, snitching is what you do best. RealCowboys (talk) 07:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not telling you what to do, I'm trying to help you become a cooperative editor. Feel free to ignore my suggestions.

I don't snitch at all. I simply help enforce rules on wikipedia.

If you want to point out things I wrote, you should include a link for context.

Using "football domination" is no more biased than indicating that Ted Nugent is god or that the Beattles are bigger than Jesus. Those are verifiable quotes that were used to describe them and so if one can be found, as was explained above, then it's fair to use, at least in the body. Neutrality must be maintained.

And for the record, you didn't call me a vulgar name, you stated I was acting badly, albeit with a poorly chosen word. And you should actually read WP:CIVIL and metawikipedia:Dick.

If you want to continue this discussion, feel free to do so on your talk page, but don't forget to leave me a talkback notice. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I would note that, in order for Barcelona "domination" to be placed as a header, it would need to enter common usage, as shown through relable sources. Walter, neither Ted Nugent's claim of godhood or the Beatles' misquote are article headers, so I don't know what you mean. —Dark 06:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There are several articles, former and current managers and players, experts etc. that have labelled the Guardiola era as an dominance. 13 out of possible 16 titles also confirm this. It is a very common description used about this current FC Barcelona. Domination is also used for Manchester United's domestic dominance under the reign of Alex Ferguson's as well for Real Madrid during the 1950-1960's and Sacchi's AC Milan in the late 1980's and early 1990's. I must admit that if 13 titles won out of possible 16 is not enough to be labelled as dominant, then the word should not be used to describe any past or present successful club team or country.--Suitcivil133 (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Please, if you can provide verifiable reliable sources saying the club is "dominant" (with context) then add them and there should be no problem. Stop edit warring, you, and any other edit warring editor, are going to be blocked shortly if this stupidity continues. Discuss your issues/claims/disagreements on the talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Squad table format

A discussion is being held here on the possibility of rolling out a new squad template. The new template, named {{football squad player2}}, differs from the standard squad layout in several ways:

• It features a sort function
• Comes in a single column format that can be understood by screen readers.
  • Single column format ensures that low resolution browsers, including mobile devices, do not get part or all of the second column cut off.
  • Single column format ensures less clutter, particularly at lower resolutions, for wide sections such as the Arsenal loan section.
• It gives nationality its own column; at present flags are featured in a blank, untitled column
• It complies with Wikipedia's guidance on flag usage.
• It leaves enough space to add images of current players, an example of which can be seen at Watford F.C#Current squad.

It is proposed that the new template be added to some of Wikipedia's most high-profile club articles, which might include FC Barcelona. To give your thoughts, please read and contribute to the discussion at WikiProject Football.

Regards, —WFC— 00:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The football project is suggesting that all rosters move to that format. See WikiProject Football/Archive 62#Roster format. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Affiliated clubs

Should this not be removed, there does not appear to be any citing of references and it almost looks like the list from Football Manager in regards to feeder clubs? Joshuaselig (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Should not be removed because it doesn't have any references? Did you really write that? It should be removed because it doesn't have any references (or any rhyme or reason). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You've been misled by a somewhat archaic construction of the English language. "Should this not be removed..." (a question) is equivalent to "This should be removed..." (a statement). -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Permanent/Regular soccer academy

As said by one of SCB Escola co-founder, Indonesia will be the first of Permanent/Regular soccer academy in overseas and not just a temporary or summer camps.http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/01/25/indonesia-get-fc-barcelona-s-first-overseas-soccer-academy.html Gsarwa (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Might be FC Barcelona have many soccer academy, but not in overseas (I don't know wether Poland and Great Britain are categorized as overseas or not).Gsarwa (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Burnley Football Club/1957.!!!!at the Nou Camp

I was a member of Burnley team who played on that great occasion at your ground. Another foreign side was involved in the 'three day'opening tournament. The date was,I think,the 27th. September.Quite an occasion.!!!!! Yet, no mention anywhere on your website.?? I still have the small 'lapel' badge.!!! It would be nice to see it mentioned in your memoirs.!!!!86.159.217.254 (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Dave Smith.--86.159.217.254 (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 January 2012

There are some mistakes concerning nationalities, it's necessary to change some catalan to spanish nationalities

GranAnsar (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This template is for requesting specific changes to the article, if you'd like to edit it yourself you need to be autoconfirmed/confirmed--Jac16888 ^Talk 12:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Catalanism

Founded in 1899 by a group of Swiss, English and Catalan footballers led by Joan Gamper, the club has become a symbol of Catalan culture and Catalanism, hence the motto "Més que un club" (English: More than a club).

I think that's a subjective opinion, the footballers were spanish, like the team, not catalonian, and the team isn't a symbol of catalanism, that's a mistake, it's a team followed by a lot of different people, not only catalanism — Preceding unsigned comment added by GranAnsar (talk • contribs) 2012-02-16 09:30:27

Then add a CN. I removed the overlinks, but don't know how to fix the phrase without doing damage to the idea, which as I understand, is accurate. It is a symbol of Catalanism. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)