Talk:El Clásico/Archive 1

Archive 1

Champions League semi-final 1st Leg

It's not in the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601andrew (talk • contribs) 14:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Missing scorelines/scorers

The Real Madrid has something no other team have, "Everyone who likes futbol watch Real Madrid or are pendin of what happen with the team either they are fans or not", —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.2.236.196 (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The matches between seasons 1995/1996-2002/2003 are missing from the list. Kateab (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Unapropiate sources

In the bibliography reference 8 is the "As" sports tabloid. That's a hooligan pro-Madrid newspaper, I really would suggest you to use something else.

There's plenty of sociological and historical books about the relation of FCB and RMCF with the francoist regime to end up using a tabloid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.83.222.76 (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

List of Players

The Real Madrid has something no other team have, "Everyone who likes futbol watch Real Madrid or are pendin of what happen with the team either they are fans or not",

In the list of players who played for both clubs, is it really necessary to name players who never played in the first team at their original club? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.84.84 (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Highest scorer

The Real Madrid has something no other team have, "Everyone who likes futbol watch Real Madrid or are pendin of what happen with the team either they are fans or not", —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.2.236.196 (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the article is about football, should it include statistic about players who score if someone have reliable data : G.nguyenquang 10:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

These are available at www.lfp.es, and I am currently doing up the results table, as well as considering adding in further statistics (i.e. Players who have played most Clasicos, Players who have scored most goals, Players who have scored hat-tricks etc.)Kingjezza (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Blatantly POV, anachronistic and stereotype

The Real Madrid has something no other team have, "Everyone who likes futbol watch Real Madrid or are pendin of what happen with the team either they are fans or not", —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.2.236.196 (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"From the early days of football in Spain the two clubs were seen as representatives of the two rival regions, Castile and Catalonia, as well as the two cities themselves. The rivalry projects what many regard as the political and cultural tensions felt between Castilleans and Catalans. For many Catalan supporters FC Barcelona has been symbolizing the ideal of independence, while they saw Real Madrid as a symbol of centralism."

This article is possibly the most stereotypical article I've ever read in Wikipedia. It actually reminds me a lot to a documentary I saw a couple of years ago in TV, it just lacks the reference to Real Madrid symbolizing proud of imperialism and monarchy.

80.26.84.138 20:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"So FC Barcelona become more than a club (més que un club) in Catalonia and one of its greatest ambassadors as a defender of freedom. At the same time, Real Madrid, selectively or not, was representing the sovereign centralism.."

FC Barcelona, defender of freedom. This is one of the most cynical examples of Barcelonista propaganda I've ever seen.

This article needs a complete change. Bias should not be welcome nor accepted in an encyclopedia like wikipedia.

Spooki123 19:24, 8 Jun 2007 (UTC)

This is the most biased article in Wikipedia. This article is full of false stereotypes like Catalans defenders of freedom. This article is bullshit!!.83.63.162.217 16:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Please change this page, ¿¿barcelona = freedom???, and in the first years of Franco, Real means republicans for the goverment, not Barcelona. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.30.201 (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Despite my allegiance to Barcelona (for full disclosure), I have to agree that this article is very biased towards FC Barcelona, the city of Barcelona, and Catalonia in general. I just removed two unreferenced articles stating, in brief, that Real Madrid represents all things evil and Barcelona all things wonderful. That is, of course, incorrect if you're a Real Madrid fan. Real Madrid may have been Franco's team and various RM supporters groups are certainly fascist (Ultras Sur, for instance), but that doesn't mean Madrid supporters are to a man and woman fascists. Just like saying Barcelona's fans are all liberal and love freedom. The Boixos Nois is certainly not a puppy-cuddling group and they are Barca supporters. Therefore I believe in very POV to suggest these concepts; stating that "Madrid is the seat of government and of the royal family. It was built on and is sustained by the notion of 'pure spanishness' and centralism - exemplified by Franco's obsessive opposition to Spain's multicultural identity," is obviously POV and is not referenced. This is an article about a very intense rivalry, but should not take sides culturally and politically, just as all other articles on Wikipedia should not. Thanks, Isaiah (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for sparing Madrid's miserable life, Isaiah. We feel so grateful. But I still think this article is pure, undebased bullshit. And the fact that nobody has wiped it off and rewritten it from scratch really says something about the quality of certain 'secondary' articles on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.7.37.72 (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I am Catalan and long-time Barça supporter, but I have edited out several parts of this article because it is incredibly biased. Not even my grandfather, a Barça soci for over 40 years, could have written this "article". I am sorry, but this article needs to be entirely rewritten if Wikipedia is to be considered a reliable encyclopedia and not a propaganda tool. In fact, I think that the bias of this article is worse for us Barça supporters than for Madrid supporters, since it seems to have been written by a Figo-hating boixos noi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.137.213.100 (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Im tired of people putting in this article that Madrid is a "francoist city" that represents "spanish centralized state" and Barcelona is democratic, modern, and has introduced socialism and clothing to Madrid, when It is not true.

If you keep making such over-the-top claims, you're not going to get any consensus about your edits. --Jotamar (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

And surely this kind of vandalism won't help you in any way: [1]. Maybe you should try to open a debate on a better wording for that part of the article that you don't like, but you cannot keep on removing sourced information. --Carles Noguera (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation Page

I want to propose a Disambiguation Page for El Clasico and Superclasico, as one could interpret it as the Argentine (River Plate vs. Boca Juniors), Spanish (Real Madrid vs. Barcelona), or Mexican (America vs. Chivas) derbies, not to mention any derby in the Spanish speaking world that is called as such. Could we get some consensus on that? I think it heavily needed. 68.94.127.5 (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Madrid "a francoist city", and Real Madrid

Real Madrid CF Its not ligated to any political affiliation. And you cant call a city "francoist". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cid Campeador (talk • contribs) 16:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

In the 1930s (early days of football), some of the best Madrid players were Basque, notably the Regueiro brothers, signed from Real Unión de Irún. One of them was the captain of the Basque national team which toured Europe and America during the Spanish Civil War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maki87 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Spanish State

From the early days of football in Spain the two clubs were seen as representatives of the Spanish Centralized State and Catalonia

Spain is not a centralized state. There are two reasons about the rivality: Madrid and Barcelona are important cultural cities and the most important in Spain (cultural-economic aspects) and Madrid is capitol of Spanish patriotism while Barcelona is of Catalonian nationalism (politics aspects).

NOTE: In Spain there is a difference between "patriotism" (to love the homeland) and "nationalism" (to impose some cultural differences as superiority above other cultures). Do not confuse both words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.53.223.16 (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Guys who talk about Madrid

Real Madrid is not ligated to any centralized state, to any federal state or any idea of state. Its a football lub based in Madrid and Madrid is only a city, It doesnt represnt any political idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cid Campeador (talk • contribs) 00:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Look guys, this is actually very simple. Take a look at the corresponding wikipedia policies, in particular WP:Verifiability. It is mainly a matter of providing reliable sources. Personal opinions of editors don't matter at all (neither mine, nor Cid's, nor anybody else). I have only engaged at some point in this edit war because some people were trying to erase sourced stuff without providing a plausible explanation, but it is also true that in the current wording (which certainly needs to be improved) some references are still needed to justify the alleged political dimension of those football clubs. Those interested on the topic should look for those sources. --Carles Noguera (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The article does not state anything about a factual link between a football club and a state or nation. The actual wording is this: ... the two clubs were seen as representatives .... It's a question of perception and symbolic values attached to that perception.

On the other hand, removing unreferenced passages, let alone referenced ones, is something that demands some consensus among editors, which in this case doesn't exist. If Cid campeador wants to reach a consensus, he or she should give better arguments. --Jotamar (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This is quite simple really. I'm Spanish and lived in Spain for many years and I haven't perceived such thing as people thinking both clubs are representative of what you assure they are. Not until I discovered such opinions in internet in English language not long ago. Maybe this perception exists in a single area in Spain clearly influenced by regional media traditionally controlled by catalan nationalist parties (like TV3 and others), because otherwise I cannot explain myself this disparity of perceptions. If this is the case, then we should change the wording to ...only in Catalonia the two clubs were seen as representatives .... Also, take in consideration that there are 1 million Real Madrid supporters in Catalonia, and from what I perceive they don't agree with your opinions, so maybe the last wording should be ...in Spain, only in Catalonia the two clubs were seen as representatives... by Barcelona supporters only. --Spooki (talk) 23:40 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.219.78 (talk)

In any case to me is extremely irrelevant the way you think a group of fans of a particular football club perceive a rival team, especially in such a passionate and irrational sport as football. --Spooki (talk) 23:42 (UTC)

== False facts about Madrid (again) == Madrid fans are always called fascist and spanish nationalist. I will say some things: Real Madrid didn't win any league during the 40's, and Franco started his dictatorship in 1939. Real Madrid was founded by two catalan brothers: Julian Padros Rubio y Carlos Padros Rubio.And during the 50's, Real Madrid became a legend when it won the european cups, not our leaague!! franco couldn't do anything to make Real madrid win it. At last, in our Civil War, Madrid was the city which do a great ressitance to the fascist troops, barcelona was conquered in a few days of fight.

It's not a question of consensus, Jotamar, Its a simple fact: Real Madrid "is not seen" as a representative of "anything". The legend of Franco helping Real Madrid is that, a legend, made only by some Barça fans to explain the fact of Madrid having more titles than Barça. Im from a village of Cordoba, Andalousia. Here Real Madrid is the most popular club and at the same time the majority of people votes in Spanish elections PSOE and IU. In 1968 and 1961 Real Madrid got stolen by referees very famous matches against Barça. Barça gave 2 "insignias" to Franco when the dictatorship. Madrid never gave anything to the dictator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cid Campeador (talk • contribs) 12:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I should start by saying I'm mildly sympathetic to what your saying as Real's link to Franco is regularly overexagegerated. The problem here, however, is that you are asserting what you see as "truth" - if you check the wikipedia polciies on WP:V and WP:RS you'll see that what is included in these articles is made up of informationtaken from reliable sources. The Gurdian article, is a classic example of this. You yourself can produce Reliable sources refuting this argument - and they can be included. However just because you assert something is truth or false, without supporting this with verifiable evidence, it does not mean something should be removed from the article. Thats not how wikipedia works.

Having said that I'd say the assertions that have no reliable sources (and there are a few) should be removed from the article. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is absolutely biased. So terrible I wouldn't really know where to start. It's very simple. There are two kinds of History regarding the Real Madrid-Barcelona rivalry. The first is made by Catalans for Catalans, and is somehow represented in the Jimmy Burns book about the blaugrana club, or the documentary Football and Fascism where only people who belong to FC Barcelona (as the famous Historian Gary Lineker) can have a talk about the Madrid-Barcelona rivalry from the point of view we all know from a certain type of barcelonista. Others who are supposed to be neutral, such as Santiago Segurola, will get to talk about it only if what they say is conveniently taken out of context first. This last documentary belongs to the BBC and has very serious mistakes about Spanish History. Many of the things they say cannot simply be verified. Others are simply false, or half truths. What's the main difference between the first kind of History and the second one. The first one got translated to English way earlier and it's accepted as a matter of a fact, and of course doesn't respect all the rules of Historiography (in fact quite often there is a very evident lack of respect towards them). The second one has barely been translated from Spanish to English (God knows why) and tries to deny, complete or simply give new nuances to some (rather say many though) of the things assured by the first one. The only thing I know is there is barely a debate about this in English, and that can only harm our knowledge of the matter. Our loss. Spooki (talk)17:30, 3 December 2009 (UCT)

to Lord Cornwalis

Lord Cornwalis, I have seen the guardian article and It doesnt have any empirical basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cid Campeador (talk • contribs) 19:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You have highled the neutrality policy, but almost at the beginning of WP:NPOV it states "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources".

The problem here is that you are not providing reliable sources supporting your own position. You are just challenging what already exists despite that being largely sourced. Wether or not you disagree with the Guardian article it still passes as a reliable source and justifies inclusion. If you can produce your own sources challenging the claims of the Guardian article, then they can be added too. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Your theory is that every page on the internet that is not wikipedia is a reliable source. A man can make an article in a newspaper on the internet and becaame a "reliable source". There is not any evidence of Real Madrid representing " a Spanish Centralized State". That is a subjectiva perception. If you want to establish that as a fact, make a poll asking football supporters if they think that Real Madrid represents "Spanish Centralized State". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cid Campeador (talk • contribs) 22:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Mmhh even government adopts this symbolic policy. PP (centralist, right-wing, politcal party and governing in Madrid community) are often pro-Madrid fans, where PSOE, left-wing party, often accused to give too much privileges to Catalonia, are more likely to be Barça simpatizants, as last president Rodriguez Zapatero. Whether this is casuality or intentional (narketing, as traditionaly left wins thanks to Catalonia and Andalucia), nobody knows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.58.131 (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn’t my theory this is a wikipedia policy. Not every page on the internet is a reliable source as you will see if you go to WP:Reliable Source, but the BBC is as is The Guardian. Whether or not you disagree with what these articles say, is irrelevant. Wikipedia works on verifiability rather than "truth". If you feel that the current wikipedia article is unjust to Barcelona, you need to find reliable sources of your own challenging the claims made in the BBC and Guardian articles – and they can be added to this article. It might help you to study the policies I have highlighted, as they explain how wikipedia is composed.

I appreciate you are unhappy with the current article, but that’s not how wikipedia works. For whats it worth I’d add that I personally feel the Franco-Madrid thing is a bit overdone by many commentators, but that is just my opinion. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well. Things are way simpler than that. It's impossible to find any kind of sources challenging the fact Real Madrid represents "Spanish Centralized State" simply because it's such a ridiculous claim nobody with acceptable knowledge of Spanish History and Spanish Football History would take it seriously. In fact, if you have a look at this very same section in Spanish language you will notice that such claims have been erased as lots of users refer at them as laughable or ridiculous. Also, note that if some of the statements we can read in this or other pages were close to be true, Real Madrid would be extremely unpopular among a huge majority of Spaniards when it's precisely the total opposite (most supported football club in Spain by a quite significant difference). To summarize: Victimist "History" clearly manipulated, written by Catalans for Catalans, and since a few years ago, translated to English with absolutely no other views being considered. My thoughts, an interested party, not concerned in letting the truth get known whatsoever (otherwise there would be a huge historical research contemplating more than just one kind of "source"), fulfilling an agenda to get a black legend propagated. Spooki (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Rivalry culture deleted

See: NPOV tutorial —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.79.205.22 (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Cid, I'll highlight again for you this sentence from the NPOV policy - "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources".

More than a week after you last brought this up, you still haven't provided a source countering the BBC and Guardian articles. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian is not the authority in these subjects. That supposed article only tells subjective perceptions, not prpbed facts. Ill be editing if you continue posting that lies. Barça gave 2 insignias to Franco. That could be written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cid Campeador (talk • contribs) 11:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to get slightly bored of highlighting policies for you but the policy on reliable sources clearly demonstrates that the Guardian and the BBC are both acceptable for inclusion here. Wikipedia is built around verifiability rather than "truth". You are continually asserting something you believe to be truth, without providing any sources to support this. You still haven't made the effort to find a single source which counters what is said in the Guardian and BBC articles. If you want to add about the 2 insignias then provide a reliable source that says this - then it can go in. If what is written in this article bothers you so much then go out and find a source that refutes it. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Section "Rivalry Culture"

I think that CidCampeador is right. We should promote the wikipedia neutral point of view. If someone has written an artile in the Guardian taling about a relationship of Real Madrid with Franco we cannot treat that statements as universal knowledge. We all know that the isn any empirical or historical facct that has demonstrated favouritism of FRanco's regime towards Real Madrid. And the perceptions... bufff... people rarely assocites Real Madrid with and "Spanish Centralized State"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rufo3 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 25 June 2009))

Cid, I've already explained to you at least half a dozen times why the Guardian and BBC are reliable sources. If you disagree with what they say then find some sources of your own which contest this and they can be added to this article. Clearly you feel strongly about the current layout and want it changed, but deleting huge chunks of text and sock puppetry are not the way to acheive this. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is the BBC a reliable source ALWAYS? I accept it can be a reliable source most of times but not in all cases. The BBC made a documentary about this very same issue which is absolutely shameful from a neutral perspective, full of mistakes any student of Spanish History would quickly identify, incredibly biased, very partial as it's seen by the election of the characters that participate in it, as well as a great part of images and commentary used. Spooki (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Protect the article

I request to protect the article seeing the avalanche of editions ready to re-establish the paragraph " Culture of the rivalry " from the part of not registered and fanatical supporters of FC Barcelona. I am saying it totally seriously, if we want that this one is a serious article we have to protect it from not registered individuals, like 212.70.208.136. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cid Campeador (talk • contribs) 12:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Instead of deleting it, why not edit it into a form that you find satisfactory? Deleting it outright does your point of view no favours as it appears totalitarian, i.e. you will accept no compromise. In doing so you are exhibiting the very characteristics that you accuse the section of levelling at Madrid. Hence, to an independent third party like me you are undermining your own argument. danno 21:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, danno, I think that a third side like you could put an end to this edit war. I will listen to you. (talk • contribs) 19:26, 2 July 2009

I am happy to hear that you agree to discuss and I would also like to hear third opinions from somebody expert on this topic. --Carles Noguera (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Great news. I think that the article loses a lot with the removal of that section, which provides an understanding of the political and historical background of the rivalry for those unfamiliar with Spanish/Catalonian politics or the Di Stefano episode, and a good “jumping off” point for those who might be intrigued and want to know more about Spain's recent history (surely a good thing?). On the other hand, I agree that it does seem to have a pro-Barcelona bias (and does the vague part about art and fashion coming into Spain via Barcelona have any place in an article about football rivalry??). It would definitely benefit from input from someone who has studied 20th century Spanish history and/or more citations from different articles rather than repeatedly quoting from the same handful of articles. There may be useful info here: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discusi%C3%B3n:Derbi_espa%C3%B1ol, but as my Spanish is appalling I can't really tell! danno 19:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

6 weeks on and this section actually appears to have become more biassed. What's going on? Does all the stuff about emergent political ideologies really deserve a place here? And that stuff about fashion is still there. In a football article! I've said before that I don't feel qualified to edit this article, but other editors out there clearly are. So someone needs to man (woman?) up and give this section a proper, authoritative, unbiassed edit. danno 21:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

INCOMPLETE

This article is so uncompleted, a lot of results needed. A real madrid fan nerd deleted this to post shit about madrid. 62.57.9.222 (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Latest editions

The article says:

"they are sometimes identified, especially among FC Barcelona supporters in Catalonia, with 'Spanishness' and Catalanism, respectively, whilst the clubs are the most successful and influential football clubs in the country. It is one of the most followed football matches in the world, watched by hundreds of millions of people in many countries. "

I edited this paragraph because

a) There is not empirical basis that confirms Real Madrid is identified with such thing as Spanishness.

b) Even in the case such poll existed, the way a set of fans perceive a rival club is frankly irrelevant in an article of this kind.

c) The article is oriented in a way it almost talks more about politics than sports. The wikipedia page in Spanish is a good example of what this English version should be about.

d) Experience tells me the ideologies fans from both sides have belong to a very wide spectrum therefore such identifications should not be made. This is not Rangers and Celtic in Scotland.

Spooki (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing new, you delete what you don't like, or more exactly, what Spanish nationalists don't want to hear. --Jotamar (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is pure rubbish, non-neutral and talks about topics that have absolutely nothing to do with sports, which is in the case you didn't notice the main issue here. I will report you to Wikipedia. Read the article in Spanish and learn on thing or two. And by the way, I'm far from being a Spanish nationalist. Spooki (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Rivalry culture

The article says

"From the early days of football in Spain the two clubs were seen as representatives of the Spanish Centralized State and Catalonia, as well as the two cities themselves which have moved in different directions culturally speaking. This phenomenon in sporting terms also has implications that stray deeply into the country's sociology and politics. "

Again, it's easy to explain why I deleted this paragraph. The same points I talked about in the "latest editions" section could be used again.

Then tell me why in Madrid almost everyone who wears a political flag is a country Spanish one, instead of a Madrid community flag like Catalonia.

Spooki (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing new again. --Jotamar (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

refs

• styles
• Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 22:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Historical context

"Real Madrid has traditionally been seen as a representative for the authoritarian regimes of first Primo de Rivera and later the Second Spanish Republic of Francisco Franco. The citizens of Barcelona were in strong opposition to the fascist state, several players of Barcelona enrolling with the rebel forces in 1934. On a representative level, the president of Barcelona was killed by Franco's security police, while the president of Real Madrid, Santiago Bernabeu Yeste, was a staunch Franco supporters. As such, Phil Ball, who has written a book on Spanish football, likens El Clásico as an re-enactment of the Spanish Civil War.[5][6]"

This part is perfectly referenced in the above cites. Please discuss before reverting. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 15:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add to this the paradoxical fact that the first title of Real Madrid comes in the first year of the Republic, while the first Ligas after Franco's winning of the Civil War show a clear drop in Real Madrid's results and positions in the table. The "alleged fixing" of the 11-1 game in 1943 by Franco (he personally called on the phone or what?) HAS TO BE SUPPORTED with evidence. To me it seems clearly part of Barcelonistas' urban legends.

• I only find name and page number for 1st sentence??
• Hey I think this page in more with Barcelona side in Historical context, without including the negative impacts at Real Madrid in the civil war which are (destroyed the stadium and the club's headquarters, the dispersal of the players, destruction of documents and lost Cups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.48.99.99 (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

To Sandman888

What do you do, delete the sentences that are referenced by official sources and want your orders to be the rule to your advantage without consideration for official sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.48.99.99 (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Per WP:RS, the website of Real Madrid and Barcelona are not respectable secondary sources, they are primary and must be avoided. I have therefore removed prose that hinges upon those references. Sandman888 (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete the other sentences that are referenced by thier sites , also Is the tribalfootball.com and elperiodico.cat reliable source more than as.com? Why do you delete this "as they claimed but Real say Barcelona's decision was voluntary" its from BBC source ? The sentence only with side of Barcelona without taking the same words to the source, and not the view of the fact mentioned source. The source said "Barca say they were put under pressure by Spanish dictator General Franco's regime, but Real say Barca's decision was voluntary. " you sould include the corrct thing not only allegations to be facts.

• • No the BBC is perfectly fine, by all means include those references. Same goes for as.com. Sandman888 (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

also no of sourced are used now are perfectly fine. You want your opinion to be true. With respect.--188.48.99.99 (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Again, realmadrid.com and oleole.com are not acceptable. the oleole is written by other fans. Sandman888 (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

What about National Post? Is this perfect with your rule ? I will source every sentense with your rule! Q; Do you read about RM & FCB from sites depend on one-side thoughts (Barca fan)? You should write the fact not one-side opinions.--188.48.99.99 (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Assorted points

• The section Players who played for both clubs keeps being deleted. There was a Citation needed from September 2010 and we are still in September 2010, so zero months have passed. But worse, we don't know what the citation should say or prove, we don't know what is the dubious point. --Jotamar (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that a reference is needed for the list of players who played for both clubs. A list that shows that the list on wikipedia is complete and correct. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 17:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to put the entire list in doubt. If there are doubts about one particular case, the Cn should be put there. Otherwise we would be setting more strict standards here than in the rest of Wikipedia. What I suspect is that the Cn referred to the relevance of the list, but that's something that can only be resolved by consensus. If we don't have more precise claims in the next weeks, I'll take out the Cn. By the way, maintaining this page is a nightmare! --Jotamar (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the Cn tag, as explained in the previous paragraph. --Jotamar (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• ... several players of Barcelona enrolling with the opposition forces in 1934. What is the opposition? What happened in 1934? This is a real mystery. --Jotamar (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

And I've removed this too. --Jotamar (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone keeps giving Barcelona 7 wins to show they have more wins. Please protect this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.56.7.138 (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Friendly matches

Here you have forgotten to include friendly matches, a total of 31, with 18 victories of FC Barcelona, yes 4 victories of Real Madrid and 9 draws. [2] Most of them are before the start of La Liga in 1928, at a time when these matches were unofficial but very hot, hard and entirely exciting. Why you have not included these matches?. The overall changes completely. FC Barcelona: 99 wins. Real Madrid: 89 wins. 51 draws.Rugbya15 (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rugbya15. It's difficult to keep accurate statistics in this page because it's frequently vandalized. There are probably other missing data and other mistakes, it's difficult to have all the information up to date. --Jotamar (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

March 2011 NPOV tag on Francoist section

This edit by User:Mundo tarantino added the {{neutrality}} tag to the Primo de Rivera and Franco section, without giving any justification on the talk page or even an edit summary. Please give here some justification, so it can be addressed or rejected. When a tag is not explained in the talk page, it should be removed.--Sum (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Summer. This article is supposed to be about soccer, but in that especific section a lot of opinions are dropped about the significance of the the match. This is not factual history but some kind of original research and definitly not neutral. A sentence like ""a re-enactment of the Spanish Civil War" is very harmful because almost one million people died in the Spanish Civil War, and I am sure there had nothing to be wether they were Barça or Real Madrid supporters. They were both of them in both sides and so on. --Mundo tarantino (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

And yet someone did prominently say it, so it seems worthy of inclusion. 96.39.62.90 (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Official Trophies

I see that there is an edit war on the number of titles by club. I am trying to reach the 74-72 count that according to some anonymous editors is the official trophies count by REFF and UEFA, but I am unable to do so. Here is the table of championships (beyond the official trophies). According to this data, the official count should be RM 73-72 FCB. The supposed "74" count for RM is only reached counting the Copa Eva Duarte, but this would give FCB "75" trophies, surpassing RM.

I haven't included the current Copa Catalunya in which FCB participates, since there is no equivalent for RM.

Also, could this table be added to the article?--Coquidragon (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Real Madrid FC	Championship	FC Barcelona	Official
International (official)
0	FIFA Club World Cup	2	Yes
3	UEFA/CONMEBOL Intercontinental Cup (Defunct)	0	Yes
9	UEFA Champions League	4	Yes
2	UEFA Cup / UEFA Europa League	0	Yes
1	UEFA Super Cup	4	Yes
0	UEFA Cup Winners' Cup (Defunct)	4	Yes
0	UEFA Intertoto Cup (Defunct)	0	Yes
Domestic (official)
31	La Liga (Primera División)	21	Yes
18	Copa del Rey	25	Yes
8	Supercopa de España	10	Yes
1	Copa de la Liga (Defunct)	2	Yes
International (Defunct, non-official)
2	Small Club World Cup	1	No
0	Inter-Cities Fairs Cup	3	No
2	Latin Cup	2	No
Domestic (Defunct, non-official)
0	Copa de la Coronación	0	No
0	Liga Mediterránea	1	No
0	Copa de la España Libre	0	No
0	Copa de Campeones de España	0	No
0	Copa de Oro Argentina	1	No
1	Copa Eva Duarte	3	No
Regional International (Defunct, non-official)
1	Ibero-American Cup	-	No
-	Pyrenees Cup	4	No
Regional Domestic (Defunct)
1	Campeonato de Madrid	N/A	Yes
17	Campeonato Regional de Madrid	N/A	Yes
5	Campeonato Regional Mancomunado Centro	N/A	Yes
N/A	Copa Macaya	1	Yes
N/A	Copa Barcelona	1	Yes
N/A	Campionat de Catalunya	21	Yes
N/A	Lliga Catalana	1	Yes
Friendlies
22 out of 33	Trofeo Santiago Bernabéu	N/A	No
N/A	Trofeu Joan Gamper	35 out of 46	No
1	World Football Challenge	0	No

Yes you can add the chart, of course. Though you never know which excuses to take it out could be used by the many deletionists that lurk around Wikipedia. Jotamar (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

1902 Cup not official

Sorry but 1902 Tournament is not officially considered by the RFEF. I'll remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cid Campeador3 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

References

1902 Copa de la Coronación is not recognized as official by RFEF. Here are some references, Official and otherwise.
OFFICIAL- Spanish Professional Football League doesn't attribute the trophy to the supposed winner. (Look at the Copa del Rey trophies for Athletic Bilbao. 1902 is not mentioned).

• http://www.lfp.es/Default.aspx?tabid=78&IDParam=2&language=en-GB

OFFICIAL- International Federation of Football History and Statistics clearly states that the 1902 was a friendly tournament.

• http://www.iffhs.de/?06fe3803e23c0bd32b0efa3800e42c0bf1685ca66817f7370eff3702bb1c2bbb6d20fb3c0ce52d00e42a04

Barça fan site

• http://www.barcablaugranes.com/2011/4/17/2116534/a-brief-moment-in-el-clasico-history-copa-del-rey

Quote: "The Copa del Rey (King's Cup) was inaugurated in 1902, the first nation-wide tournament, established 27 years prior to La Liga. But according to the RFEF (the Royal Spanish Football Federation) the Copa del Rey started in 1903, but that is another story altogether. As I'm not associated with the RFEF, I will use the year that is quoted by everybody except the aforementioned Federation."

Football Fan Page (Spanish). For the 1902 tournament, it shows a footnote that the 1902 tournament in not counted as official by the RFEF.

• http://www.sobrefutbol.com/torneos/copa_del_rey.htm

Newspaper article form As.com (Spanish, at the end of the article) specifies that the 1902 Copa de la Coronación is not official by the RFEF.

• http://www.as.com/futbol/articulo/futbol-fef-reconocera-barca-liga/20090403dasdaiftb_58/Tes

If you don't think it is true, please present some OFFICIAL references (I offered 2 of them, plus three additionals) that says otherwise. Something is not true just because you want it to be. I am a culé, but I am not a fanatic and I admit my errors when presented with facts. If you want to count the 1902 as official, it is up to you to prove your point with OFFICIAL references.--Coquidragon (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

FC Barcelona and Real Madrid are tied with 86 wins each in the El Clásico.

For proof see all these links: From Marca.com the biggest sportspaper in Spain:
http://www.marca.com/2012/01/19/futbol/1326928213.html
http://footballpanorama.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/preview-copa-clasico-2nd-leg-20-interesting-stats/
http://www.abc.es/20120118/deportes-futbol/alminuto-abci-directo-real-madrid-barcelona-copa-201201180844.html
http://futbolete.com/noticias/victoria-cule-y-empate-en-la-historia-del-derbi-3854.html
There are several more if one makes a quick search in English or Spanish.--Hastaelmuerte1899 (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Press releases? Look at the references presented above by me. I also showed press releases. Yet, I also presented two official sources (LPF and IFFSH). Besides, who are you to go against the RFEF? If the Royal Spanish Football Federation doesn't recognize the 1902 game as official, if the Spanish Professional Football League doesn't recognized the title to the supposed winner of the cup as an official title, if the International Federation of Football History and Statistics doesn't recognize the 1902 Copa de la Coronación as official, then please present some OFFICIAL source that does and we'll leave it at that.--Coquidragon (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

As you can see above, the first one to make the change over the 1902 Copa de la coronación was ElCidCampeador. When I did my research to undo his changes, I found out he was right. I presented the OFFICIAL sources above. BTW, English wikipedia is independent from Spanish wikipedia. You can't claim it as a source, as it seems Spanish wikipedia is WRONG.--Coquidragon (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's present the facts about this edit warring currently taking place. User Cid Campeador was the first to present the fact that the 1902 Copa de la Coronación match between Real Madrid and Barcelona was not official. I did my research, looking for sources to disproof this position. Instead, besides a lot of newspaper articles that claimed otherwise (that Barça and Madrid had each won 86 matches), I also found several newspaper articles that stated that the RFEF (Royal Spanish Football Federation) did not recognized the tournament as official, as it was not organized by them. I presented as references, the position of the Spanish Professional Football League (which doesn't recognize the supposed winner), the data in the IFFHS archives (which states that the 1902 games was recently declared unofficial by the RFEF), as well as several newspaper articles that stated the same. Several users are using the Spanish Wikipedia as a source (which nobody has updated to reflect the position of the RFEF) as well as newspaper articles, which I already spoke off. Please, explain your position as to the questions raised by me, or we'll need somebody to bring forth a NPOV.--Coquidragon (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Coquidragon

How come both the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia pages state something else? Namely that both teams have won 86 official matches each? So those the VAST majority of all sources available on this matter. In fact I have posted just a few of them, including a major source from Spain's biggest newspaper, Marca.

Moreover RFEF, as you have said yourself earlier, does not mention how many official encounters there have been between the two teams (FC Barcelona and Real Madrid) nor any statistic.

Apart from that the IFFHS is an unofficial body that has no say whatsoever when it comes to official matters. They are entirely made up by volunteers.

I just wonder how come both the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia pages, Spain's biggest newspaper, the vast majority of all sources concerning this matter, commentators and all editors that have contributed to this Wikipedia article apart from you and Cid Campeador3 state the opposite of your.

I would like to see the references who have used that proof that RM leads 86-85.--Hastaelmuerte1899 (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The LFP doesn't recognize the 1902 Cup to the Athletic Bilbao because the cup was not official (see first reference). If the match between Barça and Madrid took place in that same cup, why would it be official? The 86-86 statistics counts the 1902 Cup. We both know that the decision of the RFEF of not counting the 1902 as official is disputed by most, yet RFEF is set on its position. If the cup is not official, a match that took place during the same is not official, regardless of our opinions as Culés, which I am also one. There are several articles in the internet that comment on the RFEF no accepting the 1902 as official. I have also shown some. The IFFHS is as neutral as it goes in matters of football, as they have no agenda. Finally, of course the RFEF doesn't have a Barça-Madrid record, but it is indeed clear that the 1902 Cup is not official, so although most (not all) press releases say 86-86, it should 86-85. BTW, again, English Wikipedia is independent from both Spanish and Catalan wikipedias.--Coquidragon (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

LFP are not RFEF as far as I am aware so their opinion is not important. Moreover I cannot see your reference? The first reference is an Catalan article about El Clásico played in 2010.

Once again I would like to see an direct reference to your claim of RFEF not acknowledging the 1902 match.

Whether or not IFFHS is netural or not should not matter since they are not an official body unlike RFEF, FIFA and UEFA.

I know that the English Wikipedia is independent from the Spanish and Catalan versions but I find it strange that those share a similar opinion to mine.

If you can provide an official link that says RM are leading 86-85 then I will leave this discussion and agree with your view 100 percent.--Hastaelmuerte1899 (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I know LFP is not RFEF, but it reflects RFEF opinions. Now, since you like to cite Wikipedia's articles, why don't you read both Spanish and English 1902 Copa de la Coronación articles, the English and Spanish 1903 Copa del Rey articles, the English and Spanish Athletic Club Bilbao articles, and the Spanish and English Copa del Rey articles; all of them mention RFEF not recognizing the friendly 1902 Cup as official. Also, since you invite me to do the same, why don't you do a quick google search for 1902 Copa de la Coronación in either Spanish or English. You'll find lots of links stating RFEF position. So, so far, you have two Wikipedia articles (Spanish and Catalan "El Clásico" articles) and I have at least 8 Wikipedia articles. You have several newspaper articles (including Marca), I have several newspaper articles (including As and El Mundo). Yet, I also presented the LFP and the IFFHS, which you don't recognize as official, but many, including me, do. The 86-86 record includes this game, which it is clear is unofficial. Lots of article mention the 86-86, since they ignore this fact. So, the record is Real Madrid 86 - Barcelona 85.--Coquidragon (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Let's try a different approach. Let's say you keep the 86-86 record in the Infobox (as for your sources, I concede I have none that explicitly say 86-85). Let's say I keep the 1902 Copa de la Coronación as a friendly game (I have more than enough sources that support it, while you have to concede that you have no sources that say that the RFEF considers it official) (Remember that Wikipedia is all about sources). This is a stalemate. We have two bits of information in the article, both well sourced, that are contradictory. Both can't be true at the same time. Imagine that I am an independent reader. I see the contradiction and do the math and "Hey!, the math is wrong!." Let's say I make the change to 86-85 based on the math, and not on any source that explicitly say that it should be 86-85. What would you say to that?--Coquidragon (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Based on the sources provided, in particular this, which is cited by our article on the 1902 Copa de la Coronación, I concur with Coquidragon that the 1902 game is not counted as official by the RFEF, and if that is our standard of officialdom it should not be included in the count. With acknowledgement of WP:Verifiability, not truth (which would imply that we ought to use the 86-86 claim provided by sources), WP:CALC permits us to perform the count ourselves based on the sourced list of matches.—AJCham 22:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

WHY THIS ARTICLE IS SO INCREDIBLY BIASED. A DEEP ANALYSIS

During the next days I will start to comment why I think this article needs a whole new structure. Please I beg you to tell me whenever you disagree with my views because it's evident there is a huge clash between editors regarding this issue. Thanks in advance. User:Spooki (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've edited some of the texts in the article because they clearly violate the Neutral point of view (NPOV) which is "a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia."

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

It was so blatantly obvious the text was biased and tendentious that it doesn't take further explanation. Obvious things don't need to be proved as Couture said. User:Spooki (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

For all your arguing, your editions on the page amount to delete what you don't like. Please offer alternative sources or wordings. --Jotamar (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a matter of time. Still, deleting so much nonsense is something the article badly needed. I obviously agree with you that it needs further development. The main question is, will you delete what I type to add that amount of rubbish again? --Spooki (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article is laughably biased. Two-thirds of the written text is about history that is 40 years back and portraits Real squarely as the club of fascism, and Barca as the club standing up to fascism. This is the self-serving Barca-narrative, of course, but it's hardly shared by anybody else. Fact is that most Real and Barca members or fans weren't alive at Franco times, thus neither club as it is today has a significant association with Francoism one way or the other. Making this the main focus of the artivle is unfair. It's lime depicting Bayern Munich as the Jewish Munich club and 1860 Munich as the Nazi Munich club, because they had these associations in the 1930s. If we come to more recent history, Barca increasingly represents, at least for some (myself included), a narrow-minded, self-righteous 19th-century-style Catalan chauvinism that unfortunately directs its aggression against a modern, democratic, pluralist, European state. Strangely none of this appears in the article. Henry Kaspar (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Eto'o

I don't think that Eto'o should be including in players making the switch from Madrid to Barca, as he never played for the Real Madrid 1st team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onebrotherhood (talk • contribs) 00:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

He might not have played, but did he make it to the first team.--Coquidragon (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Official vs. Unofficial Clásicos, Official titles vs. Important titles

The last edits suggests that only "Official" Clásicos should be counted, and BTW, not all official titles, but only those that matter to the editor, Liga and Champions. That is as POV as it comes. The lead summarizes the article and the article describes all matches between RM and FCB, official and unofficial. As for the title count, it could easily count all the unofficial and regional titles, but we would be comparing apple and oranges. The title count mentioned is for those tournaments where both teams competed.--Coquidragon (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Expand Spanish|El Clásico

I have added an (Expand Spanish|El Clásico) template, since the history and rivalry sections in the Spanish article are more NPOV. I think this could help resolve the dispute. Now, I do think this article is better in terms of listing more information on the games, some records and the titles. I could do the translation, but can't do it alone.--Coquidragon (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Largest victory (11-1)

Should the 11-1 RM victory over FCB be included in the infobox? I know that there seems to be something fishy, but it is not my place to judge against it if the RFEF accept the score as valid.--Coquidragon (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I am waiting for the ONE editor who keep making the change to come here and talk. His deletion has been reverted by three different users so far. This article is much more complete than most, if not all, other derby articles in Wikipedia. "Other derbies don't have it" is not a reason not to have it in here. Please check WP:Othercrapexists. This article infobox has more details than most. The ONE editor making this change is POV, since for him/her, only a Madrid fan could want to include the score in the infobox. I am not a RM fan. Waiting for reply!--Coquidragon (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see a good reason to omit it. The editor who is removing it has openly implied that, for them, it is a matter of personal preference as a Barca fan, and has tried to frame the entire debate as a POV clash between opposing fans. It is simply not the case that only fans of the winning team would want that stat visible in the infobox. Only last night I, a Newcastle United fan, added our 9-1 defeat to the Tyne-Wear derby infobox. The argument that the information is available further down the article, so is unnecessary in the infobox, is without merit. This applies, by design, to all data in the infobox (and indeed all infoboxes). AJCham 17:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I think unless there's a good reason, apart from WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, to exclude it, the largest victory should be included. The 'largestvictory' parameter is there in the infobox for a reason. Also, the editor's threats to disrupt the article don't make his actions come across as very NPOV. El0i (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the largest victory is already mentioned later in the article should be enough, because the largest victory is not as important fact as the fact that which team has won more derby-games. I think the fact that many other derbies don't have the largest victory mentioned in the infobox proves that people don't see the largest victory as that important. Also, if the largest victory would always have been there in the infobox...then i would understand that it should stay there, but 4 months is not the same as 5 years for example. It was gone for a long time, until suddenly someone decided to put it in the infobox. Enkonga100 (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

So, your argument is that because the article was incomplete for 5 years, and had only been completed for 4 months, it should go back to been incomplete. I don't see it. Besides, even though your argument that many derbies don't have it is WP:Othercrapexists and so not valid, I'll fall for it. Check out the Manchester derby, the North London derby, the Instambul derby, the Tyne-Wear derby; all of them have it. So, some have it, some don't have it. Many articles are incomplete, many are complete. How do you want this article to be? You say "I think the fact that many other derbies don't have the largest victory mentioned in the infobox proves that people don't see the largest victory as that important." That's your OPINION. I say that the FACT that the infobox for sport derbies actually has a parameter for 'largestvictory' says otherwise. Besides, everything in the infobox is repeated down in the article, so why have it at all? Finally, the infobox didn't have for 5 years the total, the series, the shields, and the uniforms (as they were added in the same edit as the largestvictory). Should we also delete the "Friendly" games that were also added during the last four months. Should we delete the Home/Away victory boxes by title? Should we delete the statistics area or the honours? None of it existed before four months ago. I hope you can see the futility of your argument and see that other editors (as in more than one) disagree with you.--Coquidragon (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You seem to imply that to not include this parameter in other derby articles is always considered decision, rather than just something editors have not yet got round to. Unless you can establish that the omission was deliberate and established by concensus, rather than incidental, I don't see that the fact of it's absence prior to 4 months ago as significant. You also state, "It was gone for a long time, until suddenly someone decided to put it in..." - don't you see that this is true of almost every last detail in the entire encyclopedia? Your other argument about the information existing elsewhere in the article is one I've already addressed - the same applies to all information in all infoboxes, yet there is overwhelming support project-wide for the use of infoboxes as a standardized summary of significant details in the article. AJCham 19:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

AJCham writes: "It was gone for a long time, until suddenly someone decided to put it in...don't you see that this is true of almost every last detail in the entire encyclopedia".

The thing is that the largest victory had already been written in the infobox earlier than 4 months ago....it had been written there and deleted and written and deleted...so there was a fight already long time ago about if it should be mentioned there or not...until the "fight" calmed down and the article was a long time without the largest victory mentioned there. Until someone then decided to put it back there again. Enkonga100 (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm not familiar with the long-term development of this article, but could you refer me to this 'fight'? I see no discussion in the talk archive, and a quick skim through the recent edit history reveals only this, where the data was removed about a year ago without comment. There could be a number of reasons why there was no response to that edit - maybe people agreed, maybe they don't care either way or maybe they didn't notice. In any case that was then, and this is now - as said, it has stood for four months, and I would contend that this more strongly implies support for inclusion than any amount of time without it would imply support for its omission. Most importantly, now that there is a discussion about this we can actually see what the consensus is rather than inferring it from editor's inaction over the alternative versions.

If you hope to convince any of us that the info should be removed, please make a compelling case for how it actually improves the article to do so. We've already made the case for the article being better with it; specifically, that infoboxes are widely supported on Wikipedia as a summary of article content, and that the long-term prescence of the parameter in the template demonstrates that people consider this fact worthy of summarizing. AJCham 21:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The article would also be improved if the infobox would show the best goalscorer, the most appearances, most games for both teams, first game between the teams, and so on....but you cant' and don't need to put everything in the infobox. Enkonga100 (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.226.75.82 (talk)

The template has parameters for 3 of the 4 suggestions you mention, and I see no reason that we couldn't populate those either, and indeed I had done so on the aforementioned Tyne-Wear article. (I'm not sure what you mean by 'most games for both teams' - are you referring to players that played for both sides?). AJCham 21:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Done as petitioned. The first match was already in the Infobox. I have added best goalscorer and most appearances. I didn't understand either what you meant by "most games for both teams". Can we now add back the largest victory?--Coquidragon (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I should think so. It seems to me that consensus has been sufficiently established that further removal can be seen as unambiguously disruptive. AJCham 22:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I have added the kit back in the image area? What do you think? Should we leave it alone, leave both, or just leave the picture you add it?--Coquidragon (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say one or the other, rather than both. I don't know if it is just me, but the layout of the kit images is off as far as I can tell. The Barca kit appears below the Madrid one, with "Real Madrid" written between, and "Barcelona" is written off to the side. Personally I'd favour using a photo, whether the one I used or an alternative (such as this, which I had considered). My understanding is that the uniform parameter for the template was proposed but rejected. I'd say the current kits are not greatly relevant in an article like this, unlike the articles on the teams themselves. AJCham 20:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You are right! I have removed my changes from the infobox. Just curious, why did you choose the one picture used over the other one you considered?--Coquidragon (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I found it more pleasing aesthetically. The alternative seems a little underexposed, and the contrast between foreground and background isn't great. The photo I picked isn't technically brilliant, but it is a well-timed action shot. Ideally the kind of photo that I would like to see there would be something like the players lined up before the game, or the pre-match handshakes (assuming Spanish football does that kind of thing), or something like that. We do have a pic of the teams exiting the tunnel, but it's a bit distant. AJCham 23:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

4 vs 1 here and you call further removal "unambiguously disruptive"? Maybe if 200 people would agree... I bet a lot of people have not even noticed this talk-site, and many people don't have an account so they can't delete the largest victory even if they would want to. Enkonga100 (talk) 10:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.226.41.18 (talk)

I think we have a sock puppet in this new editor. A newly created username, which auto confirmed itself with small edits all two days before he started edit warring, and who is also issuing threats he won't stop, without wanting to engage the other editors in a discussion, a discussion that had previously being closed.--Coquidragon (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I think so too. I've already opened a SPI and reported his edit warring. Let's wait for the outcome. El0i (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox Picture

There seems to be problems with several pictures uploaded to this article, since the neutral pictures are considered of no relevance by some editors, and the supposed "relevant" pictures show undue prominence and/or favoritism (WP:POV) of one team over the other. I have restored the uniforms image, until a neutral agreeable picture can be found.--Coquidragon (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Barca win 87 or 86? First El Clásico in 1902 formal or friendly ?

After spanish super cup 1st leg on Aug.23, 2012. The record on wiki English page is 219 official matches with record of 87-46-86. While on wiki Spanish language page the number is 220 matches with record of 87-46-87. The first match on 13 May 1902 was controversial, on wiki spanish page, the match was considered as Copa del Rey match, but on English page, the match was considered as friendly. Any ideas? Ftj1357 (talk) 03:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Since WP is about sourcing, the English Wikipedia reflects the position of the Spanish Football Federation, which considers the game a friendly game, as the sources show. The controversy arises since this decision is not accepted by many Spanish, specially by many Culés. In this matter, the Spanish Wikipedia should be corrected, to reflect the sources.--Coquidragon (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

But on the internet and in the public media, 220 is more prefered number now. You can search "219 El Clasico" on google, all news referred to match of April 2012. And search "220 El Calsico", all news referred to the match of August.23,2012. So this is causing editting problem everytime a match is played since most people read the news from internet or TV. Ftj1357 (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Son many (MANY!) mistakes in this article... 'll be coming back as soon as posible..

Don't know so much about english rules in "en Wikipedia", but lot (LOT) of mistakes and unpartidism are shown here. Maybe because of a catalan translation (with all respects), but this is a perfect example of what we call in "es Wikipedia" a non partial article (which means the inmediately erasing).

Just for the record.. "Derbi" is the word used in Spain to describe matches between clubs of the same city (for example Real Madrid-Atletico de Madrid, or Barcelona-Español). Big huge mistake. Barcelona and Real Madrid aren´t. Obvious.

Their matches are called "El Clásico" (The Classic), because their confrontations are the most repeated of all the spanish football history. (In fact, they are the most repeated since last year, when they toook over the matches between Real Madrid-Athletic Club, but they were were called "El Clasico" in a wrong and premature way by the medias.

Second bug.. Real Madrid was only called the "centralism" by the region of Cataluña. It's true that we've had a dicatatorship, but it had nothing in common to this football club. Madrid, was (and it is) the capital of Spain, nothing further than that. This is a controversial theme still present at the moment. Cataluña was oppressed by that regime, but not beacuse it was closer or related to Real Madrid.

I stopped reading at the second paragraph.. that was enough for me. As a merely and sincerely opinion, the article should be checked.

"The links between senior Real Madrid representatives and the Franquist regime were undeniable...." Are you serious? Come on, tell me now that the 6 European Cups won by Real Madrid at the 50's aren't valid and we can call you real catalan supporters.

We have very strict rules in "es Wikipedia" just because thigs like this. This isn´t a fanatic site, it's just an enciclopedic site. Of course we can do things better (also at "es Wikipedia"), but before writing anything that may sounds you correct just beacuse you've already read it at a "reliable" post, doesn´t means that it's crrect. Let´s do an effort. spanish article is quite correct about the facts. Do a translation if you want, but don't write about itjust the way you think it's correct.

Don't know about how long this article was updated at.. don't want to know it, realy. Just begging you to made a full review of it. I'm a casual editor at "en Wikipedia", but a "constant and reliable editor" at "es Wikipedia" (you can check it at my Wiki page).

Just a brief talking of a lot of mistakes (A LOT OF MISTAKES) in the article. As soon as I can, I'll be back to check and read it again (if I can do it 'till the end..) to show you the huge mistakes,

best regards and editions, --Brgesto (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

PD: i'm writing this because all the complaints made on "es Wikipedia" article. "en Wikipeda" is the website of mroe number of articles, but i'm afraid if they're all as impartial and stubish as this one. It has references, of couse, bit they should be contrasted. Thats the way the good journalist do it. This impartialshiop should be banned.

PD: For the record too: they are 220 official games played, not 219. The are already even. 87 to 87. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brgesto (talk • contribs) 05:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

about the total official games, 220 or 219, see my previous section above yours. The first meet in 1902 copa de coranation was somehow considered as friendly in this page. That's because some editors quotes Spanish Football Federation that the cup was started in 1903, so all previous matches are not official. So, in TV/newspaper/internet and wiki spainish page, the offical games number is 220 and head-to-head is 87-46-87, while on wiki english page, it's 219 and 87-46-86. If you try to move the 1902 match from friendly to official and modify the total games number, someone will definately change it back. So just forget it, the confusion will be here forever. Ftj1357 (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

There are more than enough sources to show that the 1902 game was not official. You can look at them in the archive discussion of the topic. So, it is WP for other languages the ones that should be updated for this fact. Now, I know that there are more than enough sources for the 220 game count. That is not even being disputed. Yet, now you have two contradictory bits of information. This is how this was resolved: With acknowledgement of WP:Verifiability, not truth (which would imply that we ought to use the 220 claim provided by sources), WP:CALC permits us to perform the count ourselves based on the sourced list of matches. There are no official sources that state that the 1902 games was official. It wasn't, since officialdom is determined by RFEF and it is they who say it isn't. So, as long as the game is listed here as unofficial, WP:CALC will sum out 219 official games.--Coquidragon (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, if you want consistency in the WP articles, you can read both Spanish and English 1902 Copa de la Coronación articles, the English and Spanish 1903 Copa del Rey articles, the English and Spanish Athletic Club Bilbao articles, and theSpanish and English Copa del Rey articles; all of them mention RFEF not recognizing the friendly 1902 Cup as official.--Coquidragon (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It's absolutely right to follow the official record of Spanish Football Federation. I'm not saying the number should be 220 last week. Actually I once changed the number back to 219 after adding all five categories. What I'm talking is how to solve the confusion and editting problems caused by the controversial match. Just like now, the total number has been editted to 221 throughout the page. Maybe adding a explaining line in both Copa del Rey and All competitve matches may give some hint to other editors. I'll try to add this, let's see how long can the words stand. Ftj1357 (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Historical section

Sorry, but this whole section is a joke. Can somebody has to explain the "re-enactment of the civil war" remark. How can this be included when Madrid and Barcelona were both Republican held and Madrid was the last major Republican city to fall long after Barcelona had surrended? This sections implies every single Real Madrid fan in history was a Nationalist Falange supporter and every Barcelona supporter a Republican sepratist, but its just not possible. They are sports teams not politcal parties, people are attracted to them because of success, style of play or proximity. Studies have been done that have found that around 3% of Rangers fans are Catholics and around 10% of Celtic fans are Protestant. Not everything is black and white.

Yes its true Franco used Real as propaganda tool when they were dominating Europe but before then he was more interested in Atletico. Upon the end of the civil war Real did not win a title for 15 seasons by which Barca had won 5.

Today yes both sets of fans idenitfy with set ideologies but its only through lies and myths that these are reinforced. I'll accept that Barca's foundations and ethos has always made it a Catalan club but the idiot fascist/Francoist fanbase of modern day Real Madrid fans does not represtent how the club was or the city and its people. Xenomorph1984 (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The section is certainly far from perfect, but we have really few resources other than quoting writers and journalists, who tend to exaggerate the facts. I'd really like someone to find a more balanced and objective reliable source for the section. Jotamar (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Most appearances

The "Most appearances" section has being updated to 41 games by Iker Casillas. Now, how can this be? Since Iker joined RMA in 1999, there has being only 38 Clásicos, including the 4 2001-2002 Clásicos where César Sánchez was goalkeeper and not Iker. Several pages in the internet cite this 41 number for Iker, but they are all citing the same original source, which is clearly wrong. I found this article at the UEFA webpage dating three days ago which gives the honor to Raúl González with 37 games, followed by Xavi Martínez with 34 (now 35) games. Here is the source:

http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/association=esp/news/newsid=1872079.html. I will go ahead and fix this.--Coquidragon (talk) 11:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Boixos Nois and Ultras Sur

If the article mentions Ultras Sur, a radical holligan group, Boixos Nois should also be mentioned, the firsts sometimes show spanish nationalist and neo-fascists symbols, while Boixos Nois sometimes show catalanist and nazi symbols. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.139.207.131 (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Both groups are already mentioned in the page. Jotamar (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

2.139.207.131 (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)It seems that you want to avoid the article to inform that FC Barcelona has a hooligan group characterised in parts by catalanist and nazi symbology. The article doesn't have to represent your personal desires, it has to represent reality: Both clubs have hundreds of millions of followers and in their essence none of them is "left-wing" or "right-wing". Face it, Jotamar.2.139.207.131 (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

If you want to include that Boixos Nois or anyone else are nazi, or any other potentially insulting word, find a source for it. Meanwhile, I'll keep reverting to the sourced content. Jotamar (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Jotamar, being yourself a Barça fan doesn't mean you have to orient the article to make a tendencious view of the identity of both clubs that contest in "El Clasico". I could also reference content "sourced" that could establish that FC Barcelona as the team of Catalan bourgesoise, I could also mention the racist chants to Real Madrid player Roberto Carlos, or I could also post a photo of Boixos Nois holding neonazi symbology. I could also mention that Real Madrid has also higher number of fans among PSOE voters in the Spanish state than Barcelona. But It would be obvious that making a tendencious portrait of Barça would be away from reality. Exactly the same applies to your work trying to make a tendencious view of Real Madrid CF in the article in the past years.2.139.207.131 (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You still don't give any reason to change the wording. Jotamar (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Outside links showed are enough reliable sources for the changes ;-)2.139.207.131 (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea about what you mean with outside links. Jotamar (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Earth contacting to Jotamar. Do you receive our call?2.139.207.131 (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Shields vs. Uniforms

Having the shields of RM and FCB clearly violates Wikipedia:Image use policy. It is the same user who is edit warring about the language, clearly adding biased WP:POV to the article.--Coquidragon (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course, calling Ultras Sur "a far-right hooligan group", that creates a right-wing view of Real Madrid CF as an institution is pretty much POV policy, right? And when Boixos Nois are mentioned, with links to information that shows clearly neonazi symbology kept by Boixos, deleting it is pretty much a neutral behaviour too. Curious view of neutrality is the one you have.2.139.207.131 (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. You show your true colors. You are not looking for neutral language, you want to talk about FCB hooligans because RM hooligans are mentioned. That is not constructive editing. If you notice that the language was not NPOV, why didn't you rewrite it and then added FCB hooling group using NPOV language? That is what a neutral editor would have done. I have edited the entries for both groups with a NPOV language. I hope with this that the edit warring is over.--Coquidragon (talk) 12:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Hooligans group information

IMHO, neither the Ultras Sur nor the Boixos Nois should be mentioned as they have nothing to do with El Clásico. I am looking for consensus to delete the mention of both groups. What do you all think?--Coquidragon (talk) 12:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't particularly like deleting sourced content, but it is probably true that the ultras groups are more related to the image of each individual club than to their rivalry. So, ok. Jotamar (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

13 May 1906 Friendly

On Jan. 5, User:Brgesto, using this source (), removed the 13 May 1906 friendly game from the article stating "the game was Catalonia - Madrid FC (5-2), besides, it was not C. Wallace but Walplace from X Sporting Club, Ponz (not Pons) from RCD Espanyol and much more..." Today, Jan. 31, User:Stidpmi, using these sources (), restored the information. Before an edit warring starts, this is a source against source dispute. Let's discuss it here. Since the info was included, was then removed, and then restored again, as I write here in the talk page, I'll let the information in the article until consensus could be reached. I have informed both users.--Coquidragon (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Records

Should records like "Biggest wins...," "Longest undefeated runs...," also take into account friendly games? This is an article about El Clásico games, which many took place before the League was even created.--Coquidragon (talk) 06:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes this is an article about 'el clasico' and the original definition of this word started AFTER the spanish championship matches started and now included many other official competitions. The 1st paragraph also mentions clearly that it was given to the name for the spanish championship matches. So it is clear that friendly matches cannot be counted in records. Also, no official records in any league in the world and for any club include friendly results as record and/or streaks.49.244.171.219 (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not an official page with official records. This is an article about El Clásico, about Barcelona-Real Madrid games. Since you quoted the introduction "Originally it referred only to those competitions held in the Spanish championship, however, nowadays - in order to satisfy marketing needs - the term has been generalized, and tends to include every single match between the two clubs: UEFA Champions League, Copa del Rey, etc." There has been 12 friendlies since after La Liga was created. There were many clásicos before, since La Liga didn't exist. What about the two official Clásicos from Copas del Rey that took place before 1932? Also, If you look at the article, friendlies are included in honours, head-to-head results, etc... There is even a section for Mini Clásicos between the B teams.--Coquidragon (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not an official page yes but any wikipedia aritcle is a page with official records and has to CITE verifiable and reliable records. And, friendlies are included in honours yes BUT not in head to head results-- they have a different table and they have a different all time table as well and most importantly the records that include friendlies are only the 'Longest undefeated runs' and 'Most consecutive matches without conceding a goal' both of which (if you check the history of edits) were added much later and without any discussion. No other stats has records included from friendlies. Both of these records which has included friendlies has FC Barcelona with the streak, almost surely added by a fanatic of the club as it has been added much later and much recently than other records. To be conclusive, no other article about club rivalry in England, Spain, Italy etc have included friendlies as part of the record streaks by individual clubs. What do you think?49.244.173.69 (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You say: "Any wikipedia article is a page with official records and has to CITE verifiable and reliable records." This being true, you also have WP: Calculations which allows you to do the math yourself. If you look at all the records in this article, all but a few, lack supporting sources. Should we exclude them also and leave only records with sources? That is not necessary. You have the data itself in this article, you can count to see if the record is false, or you can count and add other records. On the other hand, you are correct about the recent timing of the edits, yet, friendly games were not included in this article until last year, if I am not mistaken. So, it makes sense that records which take into account friendly games would not appear until later in the article. You also say: "no other article about club rivalry in England, Spain, Italy etc have included friendlies as part of the record streaks by individual clubs." This is also true. Yet, looking at other articles about football rivalries, none is as complete as this article. You should also take into account WP: Other Stuff Exists. The consistency among articles is important. Nevertheless, just because another similar article doesn't include some information, it itself doesn't justify not including the information in another article. We do not know the reason for the exclusion. It might as well be that they don't have the information.

So, the real question is: independently from what other not-so-complete articles about rivalries have or do not have, should we have these records here? I, for one, agree with the editor who included them. If it pleases you, we can add a (Friendly) label to the record, which I have to agree would be helpful for the readers. What say you?

At the very least, I think the records which has friendlies should be in a separate table and include the word 'including friendly matches' in the streaks. The competitve matches streaks should be in separate. Thats how it is for head to head stat too.49.244.104.163 (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I was looking through the friendly games. Most tables would be affected by the inclusion of friendly games. This means that we would have too many tables. I say instead to add another column to the table where it is specified "competitive" or "friendly."--Coquidragon (talk) 06:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant! 49.244.118.202 (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, thank you for bringing up this question. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, it is good to have it on record here in the discussion page.--Coquidragon (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Records in Infobox

Playing the devil's advocate, should the "Most player appearances" and "Top scorer" records in the Infobox include only the highest player? Or, could they also include the highest for each team? For example, if Messi scores two more goals, he will beat Di Stéfano as "Top scorer." I think it would be a pity not to have Di Stéfano also in the Infobox when that happens. What say you? If the answer is affirmative, Xavi for be included for FCB in "Most player appearances" and Messi in "Top scorer".--Coquidragon (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed! Since this is a two club rivalry, stats for both club's players should be included so that it becomes more clearer and with information from both clubs.49.244.104.163 (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Biggest wins

The biggest wins section has been obviously vandalized. If we can't locate the real results, a good option would be to delete the section, that has very little relevance anyway. Opinions? Jotamar (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed.--Coquidragon (talk) 08:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, as an encyclopedia, is we haven´t got sources it must be deleted. ~What´s exactly the problem with the local results? --Brgesto (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this page is that it's vandalized on a daily basis, and it gets difficult to tell the bad editions from the good ones. Jotamar (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

wrong next meeting date

The next meeting is going to be the 27th not the 17th October 2013.

Please fix it, thanks.

--WikiBOb511 (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Historic divisions ??

I think this section is completly polarized. I know you can find references saying that but as numerous as the references sayins otherwise. But in this article are included just the references that says that Barcelona was anti-francoist and Real Madrid was pro-francoist when in reality you can find many historical facts like the dictatorship saving the catalan club from bankrupt or FC Barcelona giving its gold medal reconigtion to the dictador, while in Real Madrid nothing like that ever happened. Also, FC Barcelona has much more winnings in domestic competitions (La Liga, Copa del Generalísimo) during the dictatorship but Real Madrid needed to go out from Spain in order to achieve victories (6 European Cup). Adding the public opposition of Santiago Bernabeu (President of the Real Madrid) to the dictatorship, being a self-reconized monarchist but using his public position to be protected from the dictatorship. All of this doesn't mean that the Real Madrid is clearly more related to the spanish right-wing than FC Barcelona (much more related to the catalan right-wing and catalanists), but while FC Barcelona always tried to pretend be "more than a Club" (Més que un club), Real Madrid never took part in politics. I'm sorry because I think I don't have enough level of english to rewrite the article so I just claim that references, although are important, only have meaning if you compare ALL the information from them and not only the ones which says whatever you want to say. That's not neutrality!! Thank you, --Coboesp (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

---

I completly agree. This article is by no means neutral, it insults the Madrid football club telling it's a fascist club. The Spanish Civil war affected all Spain not only Catalonia. Franco was not from Madrid but from Galicia. In Catalonia there were as much fascists as in the rest of Spain. The descendants of many of them are now supporters of Barça and affiliated to the CIU capitalist party. On the other side, you shouldn't refer to catalonians as independentists because most of us aren't independentist, and we do feel we are also Spaniards, even though some fanatics try to threaten us like a mafia. Please, respect us and don't speak in our behalf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.202.7.216 (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

---

If you really think all you said in your comment, it means you don't live in Catalonia, cos you know that's untrue.

-There is not "as much fascists as in the rest of Spain", it's a simple statistical matter: if there would be, that would mean that in Catalonia the number of fascists every 1000 people is 5 times bigger than in the rest of Spain, and considering that spanish fascists want the unity of Spain, that seems very very hard to reach.

-You shouldn't refer to us as "catalonians", but "catalans".

-Most of us we are independentists, even if you don't like. You can feel it in the street, but you can also check it in the surveys: 50-55% for the independence, 20-25% against, and 20-25% they don't still know.

-"we do feel we are also Spaniards": Maybe you do, but most of catalans we don't feel spaniards, and you know it. If your friends and relatives don't feel like that, it means tou only treat with spanish-descendant catalans and not with natural catalans. 77.204.59.144 (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Non related info

In the "Historic Divisions" section you can read:

"During the Franco dictatorship, most citizens of Barcelona were in strong opposition to the fascist-like régime. Phil Ball, the author of Morbo: The Story of Spanish Football, calls El Clásico "a re-enactment of the Spanish Civil War."[13][14] A similar analogy was made by American author Robert Coover, which described the 1977 match between the "archrivals" Futbol Club Barcelona and Real Club Deportivo Espanyol as "more like a reenactment of the Spanish Civil War than a mere athletic event."[15]"

This info refers to a match between FC Barcelona and RCD Espanyol, non between FC Barcelona and Real Madrid. It must be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.126.245 (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Biased info

"Though the first socialist party in Spain was founded in Madrid, almost all the ideas that have shaped the country's modern history –republicanism, federalism, anarchism, syndicalism and communism– have been introduced via the region of Catalonia, of which Barcelona is the capital.[14][16]"

Check La Movida Madrileña, the contra-cultural movement born in Madrid after Franco's death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.126.245 (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Honours

The Honours section should not include regional and unofficial trophies.

Table of honours must look like this from below.

Real Madrid	Competition	Barcelona	Official
International
0	FIFA Club World Cup	2	Yes
3	UEFA/CONMEBOL Intercontinental Cup (Defunct)	0	Yes
9	UEFA Champions League	4	Yes
2	UEFA Europa League	0	Yes
1	UEFA Super Cup	4	Yes
0	UEFA Cup Winners' Cup (Defunct)	4	Yes
0	UEFA Intertoto Cup (Defunct)	0	Yes
0	Inter-Cities Fairs Cup (Defunct)	3	Yes
National
32	La Liga (Primera División)	22	Yes
18	Copa del Rey	26	Yes
9	Supercopa de España	11	Yes
1	Copa de la Liga (Defunct)	2	Yes
1	Copa Eva Duarte (Defunct)	3	Yes

XXN (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Although the list of matches has been retrieved into a different article, all clásico games were included, that is also the friendlies. That is why, when this table was first included, all the honors for which both teams competed for, official and friendly, were also included.--Coquidragon (talk) 05:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2014

the number of Barcelona's wins is 89 not 88. please fix it. thanks Arash.esfandiari (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Judging from both the article and from List of El Clásico matches 88 appears to be correct. Sam Sailor ^Sing 18:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Minor edit

As a new user in English Wikipedia, I can't perform a minor edit. In the following sentence: "In 1936, when Francisco Franco started the golpe against the democratic Second Spanish Republic, the president of Barcelona..." the bolded word links to an incorrect page. The actual meaning of the spanish word golpe in this context is Coup d'état. --Korgzak (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Jotamar (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2014

Please change Josep Samitier total goals scored from 9 to 10 (and accordingly Copa del Rey goals from 5 to 6) because of a simple error in summation. See: List of El Clásico matches 91.226.7.245 (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Done Sam Sailor ^Sing 13:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Info

Please delete these sentences:

"Phil Ball, the author of Morbo: The Story of Spanish Football, calls El Clásico "a re-enactment of the Spanish Civil War."[13][14] A similar analogy was made by American author Robert Coover, which described the 1977 match between the "archrivals" Futbol Club Barcelona and Real Club Deportivo Espanyol as "more like a reenactment of the Spanish Civil War than a mere athletic event."

I have read both references [13][14] and I have not found the sentence "a re-enactment of the Spanish Civil War."

Also, the analogy made by Robert Coover, is referred to relations between FC Barcelona and RCD Espanyol, a club absolutely independent from Real Madrid CF. So that sentence has no relation with El Clasico. This page is about Real Madrid and Barcelona matches, not about Espanyol and Barcelona ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.111.143 (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I've done what I can about it. --Jotamar (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit war.. (last edits)

Hello, I am under the impression that an edit war is developing very fast, having to do with Catalan sensibilities. Can anyone who knows this entry intimately (and the two contestants themselves) have a look into this, and prevent this war from escalating? Thanks, Super48paul (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Super48 Paul. I've been editing the first section, because the redaction and the information that was written was extremely biased against Real Madrid as an institution. The reference put by leftist Barcelona fans is a biased personal-perspective book. It can't be used as a source of objective information.

I live in Madrid and the vast majority of football fans here support Real Madrid, and in second place Atletico. There are few fans from Barcelona or other Spanish teams.

In Madrid there is a lot of people who have leftist thoughts, and the majority of them who follow football news support Real Madrid or Atletico.

In Andalusia, the most populated region of Spain, the left usually have more votes and Real Madrid fans are bigger in number than Barcelona's, as some polls have shown.

In Catalonia, "Convergencia i Unio" is a center-right Catalan nationalist party, and the most voted in the last autonomous elections. The polls show 93% of their voters who follow football are Barcelona fans.

As you see, there is plenty of connection of Barcelona supporters with nationalist Catalan conservative parties, and a at the same time, Real Madrid is more followed in the majority of autonomous regions.

The redaction of the "Historic divisions" section is pretty innacurate.

The funny thing is when they tried to put "Ultras Sur" in the article, when Barcelona has bigger neo-nazi hooligan group, called "Boixos Nois", who have actually killed people.2.139.207.131 (talk) 08:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Nothing to do with francoism

Yeah, Real Madrid has nothing to do with francoism, just check who was in the main box during last RM-FCB match. That match, and the ones held the previous 60 years.

Marcelo Own Goal

The second Barcelona goal in the El Clasico on 10 December 2011 was an own goal by Marcelo and not a goal scored by Xavi.LFP website

Other venue wins

The table under section "Results" is lacking a column with the "other venue wins", corresponding to 4 Copa del Rey matches won by Real Madrid and 2 by Barcelona (see List of El Clasico matches)

I'm open to stop the edit war, we have to talk

This cannot last forever, we've been the past 2 weeks with a constant edit war in the "Historic Divisions" section.

I think that a personal perspective view from a foreigner is not a valid reference to explain decades of internal rivalry between these two Spanish teams.

I know the subject better than this specific person, as an Spaniard from Madrid, a football fan, a reader of newspapers and history books, and having known a lot of Barcelona fans and Catalan people, some of them friends of mine.

Why not establish my experienced views as a reference in this article? Cid Campeador3 11:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 October 2014

Real Madrid lead the head to head for competitive matches by 92-88, not 96-88 as stated

See above 81.145.165.2 (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 October 2014

hello, "All competition competitive wins" for Madrid is 92 not 93 according to BeIN Sport reports. Thank you 71.167.157.182 (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. as advised at 12:11, 26 October 2014. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Numbers

In "results" section.. Sum of "All competetive" wins (from the table itself) for real madrid is 92 not 93.. Therfore for "All Matches" is 96 not 97, and for Barcelona, in "All Matches" its 108 not 107, numbers in the main table in the top of the page in "Most Wins" should be changed then

Also, the lines just before. "Rivalry" section It says:

"Real Madrid leads the "head to head" results in competitive matches with "96" wins to Barcelona's "88". Along with Athletic Bilbao, they are the only clubs in La Liga to have never been relegated."

96 should be replaced with 92 And 88 with 89 As the "head to head" (According to "Results") wins are:

92 (Real Madrid) 89 (Barcelona)

And in All matches its:

96 (Real Madrid) 108 (Barcelona)

Also change "As of 23 March 2014" To "As of 25 October 2014" in Results

Reference: The page itself

Karim3adel (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 October 2014

As a FC Barcelona fan, I trust Wikipedia's legitimacy and the official number of trophies won is 80, not 81 as it states. As of 20 August 2014, Barcelona has one more official trophy than Real Madrid C.F.. Domestic-wise Barcelona leads with 63 trophies versus Real Madrid's 62, while international-wise is 17-17. I am counting The Inter cities fairs cup, as it was an official open competition. However, Barcelona only won 2 Eva Duarte cups, unlike the 3 mentioned previously. The Eva Duarte cup was not official until 1947 and therefore, Barcelona's first Eva Duate cup is not recognised. Barcelona's very own honours page makes note of this (http://www.fcbarcelona.com/football/detail/card/honours-football) as does the Eva Duarte wikipedia page. Can you please make the necessary changes and reflect this throughout this article? Lets be fair and unbiased here and protect our club's legitimacy. 87.112.141.101 (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Were you perhaps looking for the FC Barcelona talk page? Stickee (talk) 10:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No, Im talking about the Honours section on this page. Please change the number of trophies as stated above to reflect throughout the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.141.101 (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 October 2014

Can you please remove the section about the '11-1' scoreline? As a Barcelona fan, I must admit the whole thing lacks credibitily, so for so that even UEFA and FIFA consider it a valid match in "official" circumstances. This just makes a mockery of our club and makes it look like we need excuses. Thanks 87.112.141.101 (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Verify reliability, neutrality and content of source

Editors, Cid Campeador3, a Madrid fan from Madrid, has used Dario Gol, and inserted its content into the 11-1 game. Few issues needed addressing. First off I'm from the UK, speak zero Spanish (username not my real name obviously), so I have no idea about the reliablility, neutrality and content of the following; http://www.diariogol.com/es/notices/2014/10/de-franco-el-madrid-el-barca-y-otras-mentiras-de-tv3-45026.php Spanish newspapers are notoriously biased toward various teams. Secondly this is an English wikipedia so predominantly Emglish speakers will use it, therefore an English source is preferred. The Guardian, Independent and non Spanish writers (Sid Lowe) are reliable, have no bias or slant toward any team, and meet WP:reliable source. The other issue is Cid Campeador being a Madrid fan will obviously have a Madrid slant (myself being a Liverpool fan I don't edit on Liverpool pages, bar reversing vandalism). Other edits have been made by Barcelona fans with their own slant, for instance an image of Franco and a background of Catalan oppression had been inserted into the same section, content I removed. I seek two things; neutrality and accuracy. Personally im against either Barcelona or Madrid fans editing this page as the edit history shows unbiased edits are a rarity. The talkpage should be used and before any contentious edits are permitted by either side.

This is the edit from Cid Campeador3 which he added to the Real Madrid 11-1 Barcelona section.

However, according to Spanish journalist and writer, Juan Carlos Pasamontes, the events were quite different: At the end of the first half, Barcelona players were angry with the hard-style of playing Real Madrid was using, and also with the aggressiveness of the home crowd. Those were the reasons which made Barcelona coach Juan José Nogués and all of his players to refuse to continue playing the match. Then, the Superior Chief of Police of Madrid appeared, identified himself, and told the coach: "You all go now out to the field. If you don't, we will take you all to the Police station". Josep Valle, Barcelona player during that season, denied in March 2003 that the Spanish security forces had obliged Barcelona to lose the match. Source; http://www.diariogol.com/es/notices/2014/10/de-franco-el-madrid-el-barca-y-otras-mentiras-de-tv3-45026.php

Issues with this are; this implies that it was just the "hard style" of Madrid players and the agressive home crowd that led to Barcelona being 8-0 down at half time. Likely? A team that wins 3-0 in the first game, and is 8-0 down at half time in the next...just down to hard style and crowd.noise? Really? If this was indeed the case, and was therefore a legitimate game, why then is the game not celebrated in Madrid and why does it barely get a mention in the history of Real Madrid?...yet it does feature prominently in Barcelonas history. Doesn't add up. All the English reliable sources tell a different story...Barcelona won the first game, they jeered and whistled the Madrid players, and the Madrid newspaper Ya reported at the time that Barcelona fans had "whistled at the Madrid players with the clear intention of attacking the representatives of Spain"... Franco (who was neither pro Real or Barca) took exception to this (Franco quelled all forms of public displays of emotion) and the return game in Madrid was where the infamous 11-1 occurred. So the reliability, neutrality and content of the source needs to be verified and then any further edits will be worked into the section.Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't understand Spanish? Well, I understand Spanish and English, so I know what's in the link, you obviously don't. It's quite unbelievable that you delete my legitimate sources because you "don't understand" what's in there. Sorry, If you don't understand Spanish that doesn't make my references less legitimate. On the other hand, diariogol.com is an SPORTING NEWS website legitimately belonging to a CATALONIA-BASED (!) company named "EDICIONES DIGITALES DEL DEPORTE SL", a legally registered company dedicated to sports media. The source is legitimate, if you keep deleting legitamate references you are going to perpetuate the problem of Barcelona-biased redaction of this article. Cid Campeador3 GollumTreasure 21:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Not understanding Spanish is only one aspect, I'm requesting that reliability, neutrality and content of the source are met, and not by you obviously since you have posted it. I don't give two hoots what the history was, I only want accuracy. You, a Madrid fan, tried to remove perfectly valid reliable neutral sources before..you don't see this as breaking Wikipedia's neutral point of view? I've said it before, I don't believe any Madrid or Barcelona fan should be allowed to edit ths article, without gaining consensus on here first anyway. The bias of the two sets of fans is understandable...the rivalry is well documented. We're had Madrid fans try to censor material, and we've had Barcelona fans try to add in material that had nothing to do with the game. The edit history of this page is littered with back and forth squabbling.Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been participating in the edition of this article for more than 6 years, I have a lot of experience on it. When I first came the redaction was completely biased against Real Madrid CF, even telling that "Ultras Sur hooligan group affected the image of Real Madrid CF as a right-wing club", when there was NO SPEAKING of "BOIXOS NOIS", a neo-nazi FC Barcelona hooligan group with A LOT MORE members, with more CRIMES COMMITED, and that have even KILLED people (unlike Ultras sur).

Calling catalans a "leftist people" was also the norm. A ridicolous joke, seeing that the autonomous elections of Catalonia have been usually win by the right-wing Catalan nationalisy party "Convergencia i Unio". These are only 2 examples, but there have been a lot more throughout the years, and many of them really untrue and insulting. On the other hand, I can participate in the edition of whatever page I want to, It's my right as a wikipedia user. And I insist, I have much more experience in this article than you. The source on this information I have written plenty of times is completely legitimate. It's an sport news site owned by "EDICIONES DIGITALES DEL DEPORTE SL", a limited media company based on Spain. Stop boycotting my contributions, please. Cid Campeador3GollumTreasure 23:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cid Campeador3 (talk • contribs)

First off I'm not "boycotting" anything...User talk:Amortias in his response to you has echoed what I stated. The source must meet reliability, neutrality and it's content must be accurate, which the English sources have met. Spanish newspapers (unlike in the UK) are notoriously biased towards specific clubs and have a vested interest in them. As regards being able to edit what you like, a user that is too close to the subject (and in this case Madrid and Barcelona fans) can receive a topic ban. It is crystal clear from the edit history of this article that the two sets of fans have done nothing but constantly squabble back and forth. It's one of the most contentious, vandalised articles on this site. What you say about the Ultras, hooligans, left right wing club labels...etc....that can easily be cleared up in talk and consensus reached. The problem with this article is that the two sides have edited back and forth on the article and no agreement is ever reached. It should have been locked long ago. I don't care what the history of the two clubs are, only what is accurate. The best way of finally solving the issues in this highly contentious article (especially history) is to gain consensus on talk so that changes are as accurate as they possibly can be. Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not helpful to the conflict you opening new sections in the Talk Page like this one when we have one section who already treats this only a bit up on your navigator window. You edit warred me nearly a year ago, and until you saw other people supporting my vision, you didn't step back from the war. You assure that your fan affiliations are far from this particular rivalry, and you use that as a weapon to treat weakening my stance. I don't hide I have fan-symphathy for Real Madrid. That doesn't make unfit to participate in any article in Wikipedia. It's my right to be able to contribute to this project. Personally, I think you behave like an hypocrite. Anyone who could see your stances in the past edit wars here, and your history of contributions in your personal talk page, can INMEDIATLY REALIZE you basically contribute on present and historical Barcelona players, seasons, and FC Barcelona-related themes. Cid Campeador3GollumTreasure 01:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• You two are arguing past each other. No one should be here arguing whether or not the threats were made, but we can acknowledge that one side claims they were made and the other doesn't. Does the Spanish newspaper credibly claim that threats were not made? It does claim just that. Now I've tried to merge the two sides somewhat evenly and I ask you two to work around it if you'd like. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Now, my real concern. Is this a WP:FRINGE theory? Cid, what do the Spanish newspaper claim as their evidence? That article looks to me (I don't speak Spanish) like a single individual (in a documentary?) claims that he spoke to a player twenty years later who denied it. That's a very thin point to make and Carlos is right that it shouldn't be treated as equal claims. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Dont drag me into his bogus editing. Cid as for edit warring a year ago, given my first edit on here was 1 October 2014, not one bit surprised you have a history with others. You are openly biased and breach NPOV. Ricky, as I said on your talk page, it's not about a "middle ground" to appease us, it's about accuracy. So you know the veracity of that Spanish source? Its contents? Its reliability? I couldn't care less what took place at that game, I'm only interested in an accurate account. In terms of neutrality take a look at edit history... 08:32, 15 October 2014‎ Carlos Rojas77 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,115 bytes) (-786)‎ . . (All of this may be true (or not), and if is it needs to be referenced)...I REMOVED this very section that a Barcelona fan had installed. I only allowed it back in when it was properly referenced...and then on 08:19, 19 October 2014 I REMOVED that Franco image from the article a Barcelona fan installed (that you brought up in discussion). Next came Cid the openly biased Madrid fan who has tried to whitewash the controversy surrounding the game. I've been piggy In the middle of warring Madrid and Barclona fans and tried to maintain neutrality, and have also asked for help from four admins with very little forthcoming. It's been frustrating to say the least.Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

When you say "it's about accuracy," that's approaching the wrong side of the verifiable not truth policy. Cid has got a terrible edit history, I don't doubt any bias and he's been edit warring insanely and nine times out of ten I'd probably block him for a year and leave it be but I'm going to be very generous and still assume there's a possible neutral ground here. Now if he's just screwing around, and just reverts back to make a complete whitewash then he's going to be blocked for a long time and sent on his way. It's an article about two Spanish teams and our source is that a British newspapers reported that a Spanish newspaper made the whistling claims. We should be able to cut it down to something more direct for an event that happened 70 years ago. Even this source seems to a single piece by a single documentary filmmaker who claims that a player on the team denied it many decades later. It's a story about two Spanish teams during a controversial period in Spain, I think it's fair to look at Spanish papers even if they aren't the most reliable sources. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your input Ricky. Thanks for your time. I myself knew nothing about this game until 15 October 2014 (when I removed it for being poorly referenced)...It was only then i started reading up a bit on it. A Barcelona fan reinstalled it with references, and i then added in a line....Franco was neither pro Real or Barca....that's the neutrality that I'm seeking. I really don't know what went on during that game, but there's no question it is highly controversial. It's a game, as Sid Lowe states, barely gets mentioned in Madrid (it's been airbrushed out of their history) but does feature prominently in Barcelona.Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the pages for Real Madrid (a good article) and Barcelona (a featured article) have only a single sentence about both (and no mention of any questioning of it). The Barcelona page doesn't even mention the game in the section on the Clasico. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting, not entirely sure why that is the case. As i said i wasnt aware of it previously myself. There is a section at the Barcelona museum, and Sid Lowe (genuinely one of the best journalists on the subject) states it figures far more prominently in Barcelona's history. I'd guess that anything that occurred in black and white doesn't get written about as much (I'm guilty of that one)...and more recent less significant events get covered more.Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of the source

Now trying again on the WP:FRINGE issue, this link is to a single Spanish writer and journalist who claims that he alone spoke to a single player who denied the exact quote (but did verify the police presence at least). From what I can tell, he seems to just be a random [http://www.diariogol.com/es/notices/2014/10/de-franco-el-madrid-el-barca-y-otras-mentiras-de-tv3-45026.php blogger) who only writes there. Otherwise the website is a random sports with no evidence of greater reliability. Does that seem like an accurate analysis? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The famous match that ended 11-1, and the references we use

Hi, I've seen that "CarlosRojas77" writes as a proved facts some conversations that really don't have any reliable proof in his references.

At the same time, the references I show are based on the experiences of a Barcelona player who was present in the match, experiences written by an sports journalist who met him in march 2003.

CarlosRojas77 references are weak and shouldn't be treated as proved facts. Cid Campeador 3 20:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

There are four references, all of which are reliable. I trimmed non reliable references (which another editor had put in). I'm from the UK so I use references that I know for certain meet the criteria for reliability, hence I removed Mundo Deportivo which I don't know if it has any bias. Sid Lowe is one of the most reliable writers on the game, a Madrid based English journalist who dispels the myth of Franco being for one side or the other (partly why I removed the Franco image and material on him a Barcelona fan tried to put in the article. The 11-1 game just deals solely with the build up and the game, nothing else. Just as someone from Madrid such as yourself cannot censor reliable material on the game, nor can a Barcelona fan add in material on Franco which is clearly biased.Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Your references don't prove that the conversations you write happened. They shouldn't be here, or at least, they should be qualified as "claims". Cid Campeador3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cid Campeador3 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to be specific with your issue. Do you think anything is unbalanced? The material is reliable, the sources are reliable..Independent. guardian, and Sid Lowe (who appears on Real Madrid Tv btw). He has only recorded a quotation from the last surviving player and that being the start of the rivalry. Go back over edit history and you will see the pro Barca stuff I have removed...the images of Franco, the nonsense one sided view of only Barcelona being penalised (Madrid president was also). Be specific with your issue because it certainly cannot be the references.Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

My source is "Diariogol.com", a website legaly registered as belonging to "EDICIONES DIGITALES DEL DEPORTE SL", a limited company registered in Spain, so Juan Carlos Pasamontes writings have the same value as Syd Lowe writings. I'm legitimate to continue writing the version with my valid reference as long as you write your version with your reference. If you want an agreement, I'm open to talk. Cid Campeador3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cid Campeador3 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This whole section should be scratched as highly biased and untrue, or at least not easily proven correct. The references used are articles from 2 newspapers, one unsigned, and both draw from the same book verbatim written by a Jimmy Burns who in his blog described himself as : " When people ask me-the son of a Scot father and a Spanish mother who was born in Madrid-why I am a cule, I tell them because I became one in the mid 1970’s thank to Johan Cruyff and have remained one ever since because I love watching beautiful football and I count many Catalans among my Spanish friends. I will be looking forward to this Saturday’s Clasico with the hope that the Barca that Luis Enrique is crafting will demonstrate that it has recovered some of the poetry in … - See more at: http://www.jimmy-burns.com/category/blog/#sthash.7KO5YIKg.dpuf" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.61.80 (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

1960/61 European Cup

@Carlos Rojas77:, I feel like you are a reliable editor and seem pretty unbiased. Over the next few days, I am going to start a new section in the article about the 1960/61 European Cup (which is a very big part of the El Clasico rivaly). Please cross check references, and act as a general proof reader. Thanks. Imperial HRH2 (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You won't need me to check for the validity of the references. Just avoid tabloids (red tops mainly) and blogs. Most published sources are fine, plus as I don't think the games were contentious (not that I'm aware of anyway) then using Marca, AS and other reliable Spanish sources are also fine.Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

My sources include the Guardian among other. And I might even go ahead and quote your favourite bloke Sid Lowe while I'm at it. By the way, we probably need to semi-protect this page to stop people messing with the 11-1 article.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2015

head to head

real madrid wins

71+12+6+3='92'

222.112.86.66 (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  05:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This has now been corrected and shows the correct results. Thanks. Imperial HRH2 (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Viewership

This article Is Messi vs. Ronaldo Bigger Than The Super Bowl? makes a pretty compelling case that the viewership claims of 400 million all track back to a single source which did not claim actual viewership, but potential viewership, and that the actual number is probably between 50 - 150 million. I'm a little hesitant to start an edit war, because I believe that there are lots of "reliable sources" that back up the 400 million number, but they all appear to be wrong. Rks13 (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Not the most reliable of sources, however upon reading I do concur with much of it (besides using Internet search engine as some sort of comparison as a chunk of viewers (namely in Asia and Africa) won't have Internet access afforded to those in the West). It does mirror superbowl inflation as 400 mill for the Clasico was a figure I was never convinced of (tho went along with the reliable sources per wiki policy).. Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I also agree. I likewise am distrustful of the methodology used by FiveThirtyEight as far as providing an accurate number; nevertheless, we clearly can't put 400,000,000. (I especially like "Wikipedia, which cites Forbes, which cites CNN, which cites no one" from that article.) Red Slash 16:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2015

Please change the wording "Real Madrid leads Barcelona 79-78 in terms of overall trophies" to "Barcelona leads Real Madrid 80-79 in terms of overall trophies". Barcelona has already won La Liga and Copa del Rey in 2015. Also, the Championship table needs to be updated to reflect the current trophies won by Barcelona. 199.64.7.53 (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Done Thank you Adnan (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2015

Please change the wording "Barcelona leads Real Madrid 80-79 in terms of overall trophies" to "Barcelona leads Real Madrid 81-79 in terms of overall trophies". Barcelona has already won UEFA in 2015. 199.64.7.55 (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done Good that you notified! Avani  ❝ Want to say something? Go On!❞ 03:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Real non-sense! How could I miss it!

I don't know how? But how come Alfonso Albéniz have transfer from Barca to Madrid in 1902 and 1911 as well? Either of two is wrong! Else there should be entry of his name in the list below!
Explicitely saying "Please delete the entry Alfonso Albéniz against the year 1911. 1902–03 Real Madrid C.F. season states that the player was in Real Madrid in 1903! Valid citation is present over there.
117.212.138.158 (talk) 03:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Howdy, I'm unsure what you're trying to ask. It looks like you're talking about a different article, you should probably go to that article and talk on the talk page there. Hope this helps, E. Lee (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Elee: the entry must be single. I did search for Alfonso. On that link, it confirms that he never returned. So, please change it.
117.198.190.120 (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2015

Hello, where it states the transfers between rival clubs, it incorrectly states luis enrique managed the barcelona team, it was in fact real madrid 186.177.56.10 (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done incorrect Luis Enrique (footballer) still is the manager of Barcelona - Arjayay (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2015

Please update the following "As seen below, Barcelona leads Real Madrid 84-80 in terms of overall trophies." to "As seen below, Barcelona leads Real Madrid 85-80 in terms of overall trophies." Barcelona's trophy count is 85 from the overall trophy table.

199.64.7.57 (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed by Suitcivil133: [3]. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on El Clásico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110720140340/http://www.elpueblodeceuta.es/200906/20090630/200906305111.html to http://www.elpueblodeceuta.es/200906/20090630/200906305111.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The user "Xeerow" commits vandalism

This user repeatedly edits the page to write that Barcelona has the most official wins with 107.

As he knows, that's a false information, but he still edits it repeatedly. Cid Campeador3

I am positive I'm putting this in the wrong place, but the title reads "Geoffrey boamah ico". Is this vandalism? Should the title not read "El Classico"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.186.57 (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on El Clásico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160326220759/http://www.fcbarcelona.com/club/history/detail/card/1968-the-bottle-final-barca-wins-the-spanish-cup-at-the-bernabeu-amidst-a-tense-atmosphere to http://www.fcbarcelona.com/club/history/detail/card/1968-the-bottle-final-barca-wins-the-spanish-cup-at-the-bernabeu-amidst-a-tense-atmosphere
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121107200945/http://www.supersport.com/football/article.aspx?Id=415524 to http://www.supersport.com/football/article.aspx?Id=415524

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on El Clásico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101231000103/http://www.elpunt.cat/noticia/article/8-esports/48-barca/329919-el-classic-es-jugara-dilluns.html to http://www.elpunt.cat/noticia/article/8-esports/48-barca/329919-el-classic-es-jugara-dilluns.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2017

Not done: Other language Wikipedias are not reliable, as they, like the English Wikipedia, are user generated. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Longest undefeated runs

{ Boots9999 (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Change :

Longest undefeated runs

Games	Club	Period
14	Real Madrid	31 January 1931 – 3 February 1935
13	Barcelona	1 November 1917 – 3 June 1928

To :

Longest undefeated runs

Games	Club	Period
14	Barcelona	1 November 1917 – 3 June 1928
9	Real Madrid	31 January 1932 – 3 February 1935

Section Record : Longest undefeated : It's wrong. Real Madrid doesn't have 14 games undefeated between 1931 and 1935. They lost in the League 3-1 in 5th april 1931 ! The correct answer is 9 games between 31 January 1932 and 3 feb 1935. The same for Barcelona : there are not 13 games but 14 between 1 nov 1917 and 3 june 1928. Source: List of Clasico matches in the Wikipedia French page. And also in bdfutbol.com/p/p.php?id=286 thank you to make the changes !

References

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2017

In Goalscorers section -> Suarez didn't score 4 goals in copa del rey. 195.114.29.7 (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 15:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Di Stéfano nationalities

Should there be a Colombian flag beside the Argentine and Spanish flags? He has played 4 times for Colombia but it is not recognised by FIFA. Mobile mundo (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

That's because it wasn't the colombian national team but a team made of the best players playing in Dimayor (Colombian national league). --Brgesto (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2018

85.4.128.153 (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Error : Most consecutive games undefeated in the league : Barcelona 7 (6 wins) and not 5 wins ! Real Madrid 7 (5 wins)

Please correct !

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Spintendo      14:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Number of matches

Which info is correct? A lot of reliable media are now reporting that both teams are currently at 95 wins in head-to-head matches (241 total official matches), while some other are listing 240 official matches with 95 wins for Real / 94 wins for Barca as of 27 February 2019. I think the problem is 1902 Copa de la Coronación, which is not recognized by the Spanish football federation, but the media and other sources are usually including it apparently, because other competitions (league, Europe, supercup) are 100% correct. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The cup's wiki articles in both English and Spanish (with links to other sites) declare it to be an unofficial and/or friendly competition. So I would say that the 240 figure is correct. Crowsus (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

As of the 1-0 win for Barcelona on March 2 2019, most media cites Barcelona as ahead 96-95, and this website gives a breakdown. The stats are currently poorly/not sourced, so these need to be added or the stats adjusted. Greenman (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Added 96-95 now since thats what media are reporting, however thefinalball.com is not a reliable website, but still better than nothing I guess. It actually makes sence, "competitive game" is not the same as "official game", that cup was a full competitive game back in 1902 even if the Spanish federation does not recognize it today, it cannot be included in the "exhibition game" section since it was definitely not a friendly match. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

[Edit conflict: I wrote the comment below before User:Snowflake91 added their comment but posted it after. How can you say The FinalBall is not reliable but then use it as a basis for explaining the discrepancy? I think this will have to go to the project for better consensus since you have now changed your mind a day after coming to a different decision...] Hi User:Greenman, for one thing, TheFinalBall contains user generated content so it can't be relied upon as a source (see here). But thankfully, I have looked and it explains the issue: as stated above, they included the 1902 Copa de la Coronación which the RFEF doesn't recognise as official. The only club which does claim it is winners Athletic Bilbao as they want to add another cup win to their total. So that's -1 win for Barcelona overall. I will add a note explaining this. Crowsus (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

We cannot use our own statistics, if every single reliable media is now reporting that Barcelona leads 96-95, then we cannot simply use 95-95 because we are assuming that the anomaly in statistics is that 1902 cup. Snowflake91 (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've now changed my mind too, thanks for adding the note on the article and 'promoting' the extra match in question in the Matches list. So at least now it's consistent and there's a suitable explanation. But as you said, it's very clear that's where the anomaly comes from so I don't know why you're doubting it/yourself now. I see we have a warrior refusing to accept that and reverting, so keep an eye on that. Crowsus (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I bet that there are reliable Spanish reports with tables similar to this, but I dont know how to search in Spanish articles; this goal.com would be okay to use as a source, but I have no idea where those idiots found 179 league games, 179+36+8+20 = 243 and not 242 so their table is obviously wrong. Snowflake91 (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Added Marca source which claims that 1902 was a fully competitive Copa match, RSSSF also claims that 1902 match was competitive, so it should be clear now. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

edit

Kubo is the most recent player to play for both Barça and Madrid Najera1024 (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

You mean Takefusa Kubo. However he didn't play for Barcelona's first team.--Jotamar (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Manolo Sanchís' appearence

Did he really played 43 maches? In other languages there are records of 41, 42 and 43. which is correct? Can anyone do a fact check? If wiki tells lie, the affect is wide.--Nwaauyjrlomh (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

42 per multiple reliable sources (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), dont know why some sources are saying 43. I've checked all his matches at bdfutbol.com, he has 29 matches in la liga, 8 in supercopa, 3 in copa del rey and 2 in copa de la liga = 42. Snowflake91 (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2020

My request is in regards to the official trophy count of Barcelona & Real Madrid. So according to the official table it states 94-92 Barcelona. Then another link states 96-93 Barcelona but when you click the link it leads you to 94-92. Now according to their official websites both clubs consider the Latin Cup official trophies. That would mean Barcelona which won 2 could add to their 94 to get the 96 from above. Real Madrid also won it twice and that gives them 94. Now Madrid recognizes the Small World Cup officially and Barcelona do not. Madrid would be on 96 based off 2 they won but they don't recognize the Eva Duarte on their official website. Therefore Barcelona 96-95 is the correct number. Here are the links I referenced from their official websites

https://www.realmadrid.com/en/about-real-madrid/honours/football https://www.fcbarcelona.com/en/football/first-team/honours

Real Madrid considers the Latin Cup & Small World Cup as major team honors. Barcelona recognizes their Latin Cup victories.

204.63.42.36 (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 204.63.42.36 (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Reliable sources independent of the clubs themselves would be preferable to demonstrate what the opinion of independent observers on the number ov victories really is. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Titles

Shouldn't we add the small world cup? It's listed in the club honours of Real Madrid official page TheBrBa (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Did you see my question? If you can, answer to me because it's a bit confusing about counting the Small World cups. TheBrBa (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Women's Clásico

Should be written a new article for women's Clasico or added here? Masoud.h1368 (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by women's Clásico? Among women's football teams in Spain, the main rivalry is between Barcelona and Atlético de Madrid (not Real Madrid), but I don't think the rivalry is notable enough to have its own page. --Jotamar (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I've asked for opinions about the same subject in Talk:List of El Clásico matches, section Women's Clásico. Please comment there. --Jotamar (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2021

Records>Managers>Most coach wins> France Zinedine Zidane Real Madrid 2016–2018 2019–present

His second term is over. Please fix the period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.180.57.41 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Done--Mishary94 (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I propose keeping my revision of the article (link) that was unkindly undone by @Mishary94:. The user in question desperately wants Ronaldo's 2017 celebration to be included despite failing to provide reliable sources confirming that it had an impact on the rivalry. Just to be clear, Messi's 93th minute winner was widely covered, while Ronaldo's imitation months later was not. Even so, as a neutral, I'm okay with keeping his celebration mentioned, although I insist on retaining my modifications. Next, Mishary94 is not intent on engaging in a meaningful conversation. Instead of replying to my messages, he ran to ask the admins to protect the page, citing non-existent vandalism. I assume that as bad faith. Therefore I expect the editor to reply to this message to discuss our differences. Again,

1) By undoing my revision (link!), the editor reverted several useful fixes that are in fact not related to the dispute. Of course, they did not bother to check.

2) I propose keeping that version, adding a link for Paniño's hat-trick and replacing Mishary94's text

"In August 2017, in the first leg of the Supercopa de España, Ronaldo was subbed on, he then went on to score in the 80th minute and continued to hold up his jersey to the Barcelona faithful with his name and number facing them."

with my version "Later that year, in August, Ronaldo was subbed on in the first leg of the Supercopa de España, then went on to score in the 80th minute and took his shirt off before showing it to Barça's fans in a manner Messi did four months prior."

Trackfan20 (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Trackfan20:, I undo your edit here because you deleted information that I updated, which is the most consecutive unbeaten match in the league. As for Pahiño, I asked the editor who put him in the list about related resources, which he did, regarding Cristiano's celebration, this event does not require sources, it is always popular and is still popular despite the passage of four years on it, so it was placed, I do not hold anything personal towards you but I asked to protect the page because of your undoing the information I created, accept my regards. --Mishary94 (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2022 (2)

Carlos Jasinski García (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Why do you give priority to FC Barcelona to Real Madrid and put it before in text? Simple question.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2022

102.164.101.4 (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

11-1 is not true

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

"Rivals" and "Stadiums" sections

If you want to include a section about the impact of players/managers rivalries, like Ronaldo vs. Messi or Pep vs. Mourinho, thats fine, but you will need to do this in prose with a reliable sources and some meaningful content, and not like that with some random section called "The following table shows the most rivals throughout the history of El Clasico, as these rivals at one time occupied local or international public opinion" (??), followed by some unexplained tables of players' pictures without any actual useful content, its just another table filled with fancruft just to make the article bigger and cloggy or something, not to mention its fully unsourced. See Arsenal F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry#Ferguson and Wenger how the good article about such "rivalries" should look like, and not what you did.

About the stadium images – they are not needed as the article is about the rivalry, not about those stadiums, so they dont help the reader in any way. But if you want them so badly, then make the images smaller – something like at List of football stadiums in Scotland and many other articles like that, and not in full-size like you used, 150 pixel should be the maximum acceptable size, and maybe delete "Owner" column to save some space if needed. And some older stadiums doesnt have good images anyway, on one of the pictures there was literally just a football player, thats not the image portraying the stadium and is therefore useless. Snowflake91 (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Snowflake91: Thank you for the clarification, now I'm starting to understand why you rejected my edits, anyway I just have added notable rivals in the history of El Clasico with sources and details, I repeat my thanks. --Mishary94 (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Not bad, its much better than it was before even thought its maybe a little bit too long with unnesesary statistical details, and remember that you dont need to link "Real Madrid" and "Barcelona" anywhere in this article except the lead section, and players also needs to be linked only once in "Rivals" section. Suarez, Ronaldo, Messi, Di Stefano are all linked more than once. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Done --Mishary94 (talk) 09:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

League title

Real Madrid did not win any league title between 1933 and 1953, they won in the 1932-33 season and then won in the 1953-54 season. -- Mishary94 (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Women's Clasico section

Given the recent successes of FC Barcelona Femení and Real Madrid Femenino (their clash at the Camp Nou in the 2021-22 UEFA Women's Champions League quarterfinal broke the world record for attendance at a women's football match), it may be appropriate to add a section detailing their budding Clasico rivalry. If not, could a page be made specific to the rivalry between Barcelona and Real Madrid in the women's game? Kelsiesmith7 (talk) 04:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:List of El Clásico matches#Women's Clásico. --Jotamar (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Update

Update latest match. Real Madrid lost 1-3 to FC Barcelona in the Supercopa PandanWiKi (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Exhibition matches are not considered El Clásico

Only official and competitive matches are considered part of El Clásico. Need to change that. Venezia Friulano (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The infobox, lead section, head-to-head tables etc. clearly distinguish between competitive and friendly games so there are no problems, and how exactly are friendly matches "not considered part of El Clásico" when you have media call them exactly like that (1, 2, 3) ? Snowflake91 (talk) 09:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

See the Spanish page. It's well explained. No, an exhibition match is not considered a El Clásico. Venezia Friulano (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Thats your opinion and is irrelevant, the sources are calling them "El Clasico" and thats pretty much it. Snowflake91 (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

My opinion? Did you see some other Wikipedias? What sources exactly? Please enlighten us.

All Wikipedia, including the Spanish one, which is the most complete, take into account only official matches for the statistics of El Clásico. Venezia Friulano (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

What is on other Wikipedias is not important, this is English Wikipedia and not Spanish, and I literally posted sources above so enlighten yourself, and again, competitive and non-competitive games are clearly separated everywhere so there is no confusion. Snowflake91 (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, weren't you kidding? Are your sources journalists who call friendly matches El Clásico? Those are your sources? Now I understand why the English Wikipedia differs from all the others.

Only official matches should be counted, not literally all matches, because in addition the number of unofficial matches are not even completely registered in their entirety, their exact number is not truly known.

It is also quite ridiculous and anachronistic to see that a game from 1902 (the year in which Real Madrid was founded) is counted as El Clásico, something that goes against the very meaning of the origin of the term El Clásico (The Classic)

But hey, nice job! Venezia Friulano (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Madrid founded on 6 March 1902. Copa de Coronación match played on 13 May 1902. Nothing anachronistic about it. Crowsus (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, those RELIABLE sources which are referring to friendly matches as "El Clasico" are my sources, because we use what the reliable sources are saying and not what is based on our opinions, and feel free to leave and edit only Spanish Wikipedia then...and your last point is also ridiculous, according to that logic we should not count games from the 1880s in Old Firm article, because no one called those games by that name 130 years ago. Snowflake91 (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

No, they are not reliable sources, they are in fact of very low quality.

"El Clásico", oh surprise, means "The Classic" for a reason. To consider a match from 1902 (just a couple of months after the founding of Real Madrid) as Clásico is simply hilarious.

And nope, very bad example, Old Firm is a term of uncertain origin that may even have been coined since the very first match, unlike El Clásico, which was coined much later than 1902 when the matches Real Madrid - Barcelona were already very common and it was done in a competitive official context, never in friendly matches, which by the way are highly irrelevant and whose exact number is unknown by the records. Venezia Friulano (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The statement that the International Olympics Committee, Marca, ESPN etc. are "low quality unreliable sources" is again your own laughable opinion, I wont even read your nonsense anymore as its pointless...yes, now we should selectively, based on our own opinion, decide which matches are worthy being called "El Clasico", and which matches were held too early in the history to be called that, and we should delete them...I get it. Snowflake91 (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Old Firm name is from 1904, they first played in 1888. You need to ignore the name as the defining factor here, this article is a history of the matches between Madrid and Barcelona, with the name and significance given to it obviously an important part of the topic, but the history of the article should go back to when the first game was played, and that was in 1902. Crowsus (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Snowflake seems to live up to its nickname.

No, it is not my opinion. You should simply take the example of literally all the rest of Wikipedia (and not just the Spanish one, which is already the most complete) in this matter and that they only take into account official matches obviously, and also be more humble since you seems to have limited knowledge on this matter.

No, Old Firm isn't a term from 1904, even in its English Wikipedia article itself makes no such claim. In fact it is a term of quite uncertain origin, and probably coined in the first match, hence the example of Snowflake is so bad. Venezia Friulano (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, bye, go and edit other "complete" Wikipedias then, no one is forcing you to be there. Snowflake91 (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Come on guys, how this is discussed is beyond me. It's so biased out of the common sense that it is unbelievable. "El Clasico" is not a metaphysical definition nor a dictionary term. It is just how we spanish and the rest of the world call a Barça-Madrid or Madrid-Barça match, an urban alias. It's called like that because of the long history over the pitch along with its associated rivalry (mainly due to politics). When an individual enters Wikipedia to check El Clasico, he/she expects the balance of matches between both teams. That does not mean completely ignore and wipe out part of them because of arbitrary status. Of course it would not be fair to account exhibitions implicitly as part of a unique summary sum, but how on earth could add them in the balance in another section hurt the truth and the information purpose? It's not only that some of them are "unofficial" by the spanish federation standards yet played competitive because an oldie or non-official trophy, but any El Clasico has always been played with intensity and rivalry, both by the teams and the supporters, including the media (and called as such, since there is no strict definition for the term). It's not like they are completely irrelevant and unsignificantly played. We all know, same as it happens with the Catalan wikipedia on the other side, that Spanish Wikipedia community has stronger prominency on the national-side of the equation, which means a bit biasing towards taking the capital team as a reference when it comes to subjective discussions (it's statistics, moderators origin, etc..). It's subtile but it is symbolical, for instance, check how Madrid is always placed before Barcelona when both names appear in the Spanish El Clasico entry, although by the alphabetical, longevity, and winning status (at least up to a couple of years ago, when everything still remained as I say), Barcelona should have been the first mention. This politic biasement is the only explanation on why would someone fight for deleting an exhibition appendix out of this Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C50E:3802:B600:1DD3:AFC8:251C:FABC (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2022

"Most historians agree than Franco did not have a preferred football team, but..."

Should be:

"Most historians agree that Franco did not have a preferred football team, but..." Daicko (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I know this does not account for nothing, but Franco did not like football, he just supported Atlético de Aviación (now Atlético de Madrid) because it was the military and falangist team at the beginning of the war (indeed Madrid was mainly a republican city, contrary to what most people expect), and leant after the 60s clearly towards Madrid because he was looking for a strong reference winning symbol internationally, just as Salazar did with Benfica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C50E:3802:B600:1DD3:AFC8:251C:FABC (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2023

Change “Next Meeting” to March 18th 184.82.150.144 (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Its 19th actually, but done Snowflake91 (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Biggest El Clasico win

I want to edit the biggest win of el clasico ast it was shown that Barcelona has one against their classic rivals Real Madrid 15-1 in aggregate by 5-1 in the first match and 10-0 in second match of the aggregate and the total was 15-1 in the 1926 Copa Del Rey Quarter Finals. Thank you Golden Master 08 (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Biggest win is obviously for single game only, not aggregate scores, not to mention that you are talking about some random made-up stuff as the second match in 1926 ended 3-0, not 10-0. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Result records

Hello, @Snowflake91: these statistics are always found in statistics articles. Anyone can say that they are not important, but many people consider them important as the biggest competition between two teams at the club level. --Mishary94 (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2023

"120 wins" instead of "119 wins to Madrid's 105" 77.222.241.124 (talk) 09:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2023

I want to change most goals scored in an el classico match Guruprasad790 (talk) 05:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 05:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

It has been mentioned of score line of largest victory 11-1 to realmadrid vs barcelona, but it is actually 15-1 to barcelona vs real madrid(1926). Guruprasad790 (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Bullshit, see this, case closed. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2023

{{subst:trim|1=

we want to notice you that the score 15-1 is fake so please dont change the score

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Name in Catalan, why should we hide it to a second level?

Hi, I recovered here my previous edition from February 20 to set the language denomination of "El Clàssic" in Catalan at the same level of importance to the one in Spanish. The edition was undid by @Snowflake91 with no reasoning. It is the vernacular name in Catalan, which is the official language of FC Barcelona and an official language in Catalonia (where those games are also played and broadcasted), and sourced enough in the media and the bibliography. I cannot see any other reason than diglossia (thinking that one of both languages is not revelevant enough as Spanish) to hide it to a second level. Which shouldn't be the case at all on Wikipedia, but still too common here in enwiki regarding exclusion and minorisation of local toponymia, biographies and events. That's why I raise the topic here, aiming for more opinions and language equality (i.e. reality) in the definitions. Xavier Dengra (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing was wrong with the previous version, it is clearly explained in the first sentence that its called "El Clàssic" in Catalan, you don't need to put this in bold because only the article title should be in bold as the common name in English-speaking world, same as in infobox, El Clàssic is never a common name and no one calls it like that outside of Catalonia. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

You are already committing the mistake to minorize and disrespect the language again with your last comment: "is never a common name and no one calls it like that outside of Catalonia". Firstly, Catalan is not only spoken in Catalonia. If Wikipedia does not show both autochthonous names with the same importance, of course people from the outside will never know nor use it. Not only you removed the bold, but also did it from the infobox and placed it back inside a parenthesis and in italics (totally as a secondary position). Xavier Dengra (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "minorizing the languages", but just some basic common naming rules on English language Wikipedia, where we use the name that is predominantly used in English-speaking reliable sources. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Please, I kindly ask you to refrain undoing my edition while were are here discussing and until there is further consensus. It was my edit that I brought here to the discuss while your first deletion of my addition did not include any summary. Besides, my change clearly follows Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Article title terms: "This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections", as "El Clàssic" redirects to the main article since 12 years ago. Xavier Dengra (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Check "Pages that link to "El clàssic"" and you would see that there are exactly zero articles that redirects from this page, so its irrelevant if someone randomly redirected El clàssic to El Clásico for apparently no reason. Also if you check the Catalonia article, is there a bolding of "Catalunya"? NO, because thats exactly how it should be, only the common English adaptation should be bolded, while all other languages and adaptations should be in parentheses. Snowflake91 (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I don't have a clear view on how the first sentence should be, but your last argument is not complete valid, as Catalonia is an English word, but El Clásico is not. A better analogy would be Camino de Santiago, where the Spanish name is in italics, and the English translation is bold, after some other language variants. Bolding twice is not a problem, as stated in MOS:BOLDALTNAMES. Theklan (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Xavier Dengra The Penfield Homunculus (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Exhibition matches are unsourced

All WP:OR and WP:SYNTH should be removed, there are no sources for a total number of friendly matches without collecting, obtaining and counting these matches all by yourself from several different sources. There was actually already a discussion above from 2022, when someone said that exhibition matches should not be counted in statistics, and now I fully agree with them, I thought that the content is sourced but it was apparently not. List of El Clasico matches is not a "source" of any kind, the friendly matches were composed by users over time (someone added new matches from 100 years ago as recently as two months ago), so how do we know this is complete and that the users didn't miss some games, or included some matches that weren't first team matches etc.? Again, this is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.

Did I mention that you actually removed two of my reliable sources which confirmed what was mentioned in the article, and then instead reinstated unsourced content obtained with WP:OR and you simply reinstated "citation needed" tag, is this a joke? Provide a source that there has been a total of 295 El Clasico matches or the content will get removed again. Snowflake91 (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I quite agree with Snowflake91 that friendly matches should not be counted together with official matches, since there is no federation, national or international, that witnesses those matches. However, I would ask that the list of friendlies on the "List of El Clásico matches" page not be deleted. I was the one who added seven more friendly matches, just over a month ago. Seven matches dated between 1911 and 1957. A journalist and historian of Spanish football (Alberto Cosín) helped me for this. I put sources of those matches, and I can add more. Also from the rest of the matches that were already on the list. I am in a position to ensure that they are all there. 41 are, so far, the friendly matches played between Real Madrid and Barcelona. With a quote. The 1902 match, which is listed as official in the article, is not official. It should appear on the friendly or "unofficial" list for a total of 42.

This list of friendly matches in the article "List of El Clásico matches" is complete, and is a source of valuable information. Another thing is that you have to equate them with the officials to make a total count. I don't think so. Here I agree with Snowflake91. Pinopuente (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

1. See the definition of El Clássico in the top: El Clásico is the name given to any football match between rival clubs FC Barcelona and Real Madrid.

..So exhibition matches may be appear.

2. I added 2 reliable sources of El Clássico exhibition matches. The Mundo Deportivo source details every match and the totals. The Penfield Homunculus (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the friendly matches can obviously stay at "List of El Clasico matches" article, but should be removed from this article. And I also agree that the 1902 match is not official and should also be removed, virtually all sources have 253 official matches as of April 2023, not 254. Regarding friendly matches, its funny that The Penfield Homunculus now added a source from Mundo Deportivo which clearly says that there have been only 32 friendly matches (with 18 wins for Barca, 4 for Real and 10 draws), and now wants to use this as a source to "support" a claim about 41 friendly matches played, while in reality the reference is not supporting ANYTHING that is mentinoed in the lead section. So either change the lead and mention that there have been only 32 friendlies as stated in Mundo Deportivo, or remove everything as you cannot cite a source that says "pears", and then you say "apples" in the article instead, totally contradictory. Snowflake91 (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

1. The article of Mundo Deportivo is a reliable source and is updated as of July 2017 (date published).

2. The other El Clássico matches contested from 2017 to now are perfectly sourced.

3. Yes, the exhibition El Clássico matches are perfectly sourced.

4. Vote to leave the article as it is. The Penfield Homunculus (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Don't make things up please, yeah the article is from July 2017, so the two matches played in 2017 and 2022 are missing from their stats as they have been played after the article was published, yeah fine, but that would be a total 34 matches then - where is the source for 41 matches played, 23 wins for Barca, 12 draws and 6 for Real ? Your source doesn't support the text stated in the article. Snowflake91 (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It is natural that there is incomplete or unconsolidated data about those friendly matches that were played more than sixty years ago, so it is not necessary to find a source confirming the number of matches in total. Just enough to prove the source of each game separately. As for the 1902 match that was played on May 13, 1902 in the Copa de la Coronación, it is an official tournament recognized by the Spanish Football Federation, and therefore it is an official match, not a friendly one. --Mishary94 (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

"It is natural that there is incomplete or unconsolidated data about those friendly matches that were played more than sixty years ago, so it is not necessary to find a source confirming the number of matches in total." – umm, yes it is? This is the whole point how Wikipedia works, if the source doesn't exist then don't publish anything, but you cannot make things up all by yourself by combinating data from mutliple sources and reports to reach the desired information. Because thats the whole problem and the point of WP:OR, there is no guarantee that your own research would be correct, there may be more matches that you haven't added to the article. And is there a source about Coronacion Copa being recognised by the Spanish FA now? Because in the article, below the all-time stats table, it literally says "Although not recognized by the current Royal Spanish Football Federation as an official match, ...". Snowflake91 (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Match of 1902 is unofficial, not recognised by Royal Spanis Football Federation. Here is explain (in spanish): https://www.cihefe.es/cuadernosdefutbol/2009/11/la-copa-de-1902/ Pinopuente (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Official source of El Clássico exhibition matches played as of 28 June 2017 (Publisher: FC Barcelona): [4] The Penfield Homunculus (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

As of 10 February 2017, MARCA counts 37: [5] The Penfield Homunculus (talk) 02:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

As of 23 July 2022, Cadena Ser counts 33: [6] The Penfield Homunculus (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

As of 28 July 2017, Mundo Deportivo counts 32: [7] The Penfield Homunculus (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Each reliable source specifies completely different figures. Well, I have the opinion that the only way to source this is to do it individually match by match. We cannot exclude friendly matches from this page as it is clearly specified that El Clássico is the name given to any football match between Madrid and Barcelona. Not only the officials. The Penfield Homunculus (talk) 02:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with "The Penfield Homunculus", we have to do it manually, as long as there is no source specifying the total number of matches. As for the match that was played in 1902, the Spanish Federation does not recognize it as a tournament for the Copa de la Rey, but recognizes it as a separate official tournament and therefore it is considered the first official match played between the two teams and all sources confirm this. --Mishary94 (talk) 08:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

No, you cannot do it manually as this is EXACTLY what WP:OR is – if the sources are saying 33, 32 and 37, then you CANNOT include 41 by doing the research by yourself, so either include one of those numbers or delete it. For the millionth time, check what WP:SYNTH and WP:OR even is, because you still apparently don't understand some basic fundamentals about verifying the content on Wikipedia, and that you cannot include your own researched data which you obtained by manually collecting and counting things. The Penfield Homunculus basically confirmed that there is no source which would support your claim for 41 games and that the sources are inconsistent between several different numbers, so this is the best possible argument to delete the questionable data, and NOT to keep it. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

This is is not correct, Mishary94. Spanish Federation does not recognize it as a separate official tournament. Source? Pinopuente (talk) 09:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

See here and here. Real Madrid's official website admits that the first official match played in El Clasico was in 1902, although it is not part of the Copa de la Rey tournament, as it states that the first match in the Copa del La Rey was in 1916. -- Mishary94 (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Blogs like this have zero credibility and cannot be used as a source, while the Real website doesn't say anything about the tournament being officially recognized by the Spanish Fedeartion, it just says "Although both teams squared off in the 1902 Copa de la Coronación, the predecessor to the Spanish Cup". Snowflake91 (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, what about this from Marca? -- Mishary94 (talk) 10:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Where is the source in which the Spanish federation "recognizes it as a separate official tournament"? And also, you say: "The official Real Madrid website admits that the first official match played in El Clásico was in 1902". Official? Where is the word "official" in that source? I have better things to do than argue with people who manipulate things, for whatever reason, Mishary. I leave the conversation. Do what you want. Pinopuente (talk) 10:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

See here from the Marca newspaper, which is one of the most reliable sources in Spain, expressly states that the Copa de la Coronación tournament has been recognized, and that with an official match between the two teams that took place on May 13, 1902, it is better to do the things you like as long as you have no arguments in the debate. -- Mishary94 (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

El torneo acabó siendo reconocido como el primer campeonato nacional del nuevo 'sport'. Por lo tanto, cuando al día siguiente, sobre el césped del Hipódromo de Madrid, se enfrentaron el citado Madrid Foot-ball Club y el Foot-ball Club Barcelona en una de las semifinales, el 1-3 para los segundos con que acabó el partido fue el primer marcador oficial entre los dos clubes que con el tiempo dominarían el fútbol español.En aquel tiempo, empero, su preponderancia no era total.

Marca says that, translate it, if that doesn't convince you that's really going to be a big problem. -- Mishary94 (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

«La RFEF ya había manifestado que no la reconocía y por tanto no la incluía en el palmarés del torneo».

"El Concurso Madrid, por lo tanto, fue un torneo amistoso. Juan Padrós lo organizó en un tiempo record y gracias a ello pudo decir: si se ha podido organizar este concurso, entonces, con un año de por medio, sí se puede organizar el Campeonato de España".

https://www.cihefe.es/cuadernosdefutbol/2009/11/la-copa-de-1902/

CIHEFE is "Centro de Investigaciones de Historia y Estadística del Fútbol Español". 213.177.193.22 (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

"The RFEF had already stated that it did not recognize it and therefore it did not appear in the tournament's record."

"The Madrid Contest, therefore, was a friendly tournament. Juan Padrós organized it in record time and thanks to this he was able to say: if it has been possible to organize this contest, then, with a year in between, it can be organized the Spanish Championship".

https://www.cihefe.es/cuadernosdefutbol/2009/11/la-copa-de-1902/

CIHEFE is the "Research Center for the History and Statistics of Spanish Football". 213.177.193.22 (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

When I say that the official Real Madrid website says that it is an official match, and the most famous newspaper in Spain and the most credible one also says that it is a recognized tournament and it is the first official match in El Clasico, then you puts a site that I do not know who is behind it and tells me that it is interested in statistics and says that it is not recognized. Are you serious? --Mishary94 (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

However, this source explicitly says that the tournament played in 1902 is not part of the Copa de Lari, but it is not asserted that it is not recognized by the Spanish Federation. --Mishary94 (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

My opinion: The list of sourced El clássico exhibition matches cannot be consider as an original reserch or a collecting. It should be considered as a list of well-acredited/sourced sporting events. I repeat, El Clássico is the name given to any football match between FCB-RM. NOT ONLY THE OFFICIALS! The friendly matches are part of the history of El Clássico and most have transcended at international level. We look for a way to accommodate them but not eliminate them. they are valuable data. A question: The list of films that a film director has made ordered by year in chronological order is also considered as a original research or collecting? No sure… The Penfield Homunculus (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The sources are saying 32, 33, 37 matches as you can see from the links above, and then if you manually search for more games from old newspapers and stuff to make it up to 41 games, then yeah this is exactly what original research is.
Per WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source", and this is exactly what you are doing. You need a single source that says "there have been 41 friendly el clasico matches so far", and not "32 games", "33 games", "37 games", and then some manually searched games to make it 41. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

However, you can quote multiple sources which give different answers and list them explaining the discrepancy. It is not Synth, nor OR, to state "There have been between 32 and 41 Clasico matches outside official competition [note] Source A says 32, Source B says 33" etc. If a source has been found by an editor that states a match took place, as long as that evidence is provided it should be included in the list, the editor would not be reaching an independent conclusion but performing basic arithmetic. With the 1902 match, it would be best to put it in the 'non-official' list since the status is disputed, but it should be mentioned that some sources, including Real Madrid, consider it official. Crowsus (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Real Madrid does not consider that match as official. In the source that has been cited here, he considers it as the first game between Real Madrid and Barcelona, obviously. But not "official". Pinopuente (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect, the Real Madrid website states that the match is official and that there were seven friendly matches between 1902 and 1916 (which, by the way, coincides with your addition of some friendly matches in this period in the article “List of El Clasico matches”) --13:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC) Mishary94 (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

"Although both teams squared off in the 1902 Copa de la Coronación, the predecessor to the Spanish Cup, the competition's first-ever Clásico took place in the semis of the 1915/16 edition"

https://www.realmadrid.com/en/news/2019/02/over-100-years-of-copa-del-rey-clasicos

This is not an acknowledgment of the officiality of the 1902 match. Nor is it the opposite. It is a quote from the match of 1902. Nothing more. Pinopuente (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

1902 match is not an official match

"The RFEF had already stated that it did not recognize it and therefore it did not appear in the tournament's record." "The Madrid Contest, therefore, was a friendly tournament. Juan Padrós organized it in record time and thanks to this he was able to say: if it has been possible to organize this contest, then, with a year in between, it can be organized the Spanish Championship". https://www.cihefe.es/cuadernosdefutbol/2009/11/la-copa-de-1902/ CIHEFE is the "Research Center for the History and Statistics of Spanish Football". Pinopuente (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The first citation is at the beginning of the article and the second citation is at the end of the article. Pinopuente (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect The RFEF did not state that it is unofficial, the tournament is official according to the following sources:

1. Source #1: from the Marca newspaper, which is one of the most reliable sources in Spain, expressly states that the Copa de la Coronación tournament has been recognized, and that with an official match between the two teams that took place on May 13, 1902: (El torneo acabó siendo reconocido como el primer campeonato nacional del nuevo 'sport'. Por lo tanto, cuando al día siguiente, sobre el césped del Hipódromo de Madrid, se enfrentaron el citado Madrid Foot-ball Club y el Foot-ball Club Barcelona en una de las semifinales, el 1-3 para los segundos con que acabó el partido fue el primer marcador oficial entre los dos clubes que con el tiempo dominarían el fútbol español.En aquel tiempo, empero, su preponderancia no era total.)

1. Source #2: from the official Real Madrid website, The official website talks about the official matches that took place in the Copa del Rey tournament. You can see that the official website admits that the first meeting took place in 1902, but it does not recognize that it is within the Copa del Rey tournament: (Although both teams squared off in the 1902 Copa de la Coronación, the predecessor to the Spanish Cup, the competition's first-ever Clásico took place in the semis of the 1915/16 edition, with the madridistas advancing to the final. Since then, a further 33 meetings have taken place, seven of which were finals (Real Madrid prevailed on four occasions and Barcelona on three). Of the ties between the rivals, each club has won six.)

1. Source #3: from the official RFEF website, The Spanish Federation recognizes the achievement of the Basque club Bizcaya (who won the Copa de la Coronación in the final) by saying: "Today, both the Museum of the Spanish National Team and the Athletic Club Museum keep a trophy to which we owe the birth of the Copa del Rey as we know it today.", Then the REFF goes on to say: "The Bilbao club had the honor of also winning the first edition in April 1903, although that is another story..", This is an explicit statement that the federation recognizes the Coronation Cup title, but it does not recognize that it is part of the Copa del Rey championship, rather it is a separate championship from it.

--Mishary94 (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

This is an official recognition by the Spanish federation of two old competitions that it did not recognize until this year:

https://rfef.es/es/noticias/la-rfef-reconoce-al-levante-como-campeon-de-la-copa-de-la-republica-de-1937-y-al-deportivo

"The board of directors of the Royal Spanish Football Federation, meeting this Saturday in Malaga [...] has approved, at the request of President Luis Rubiales, the official recognition of the President of the Republic Cup-Free Spain Cup competition and has awarded the Levante Football Club the distinction of champion of the year 1937 [...] In the same way, the board has also recognized the official status of the Concurso España competition and has awarded the Real Club Deportivo de la Coruña the title of champion of the year of 1912."

This is a true official recognition. Look for something similar in the case of the 1902 competition. It does not exist. Athletic Bilbao, heir to Club Vizcaya, winner of that competition, has been looking for recognition like this for many years. But he has not succeeded. Maybe in the future they will. Until then, it will remain an unofficial tournament. Pinopuente (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2023

Hello, I would like to change the part about the number of consecutives matches without losing in the league. On the scoreboard, we can see that Barcelona has 7 consecutive matches without losing, including 5 wins, between 2008 and 2011. In fact, they do have 7 consecutive matches without losing, but they have won 6 out of their 7 games. That is why i would like to edit the socreboard because the information on it is fake. Thank you for reading my message. RC4 Dlox (talk) 10:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)