Talk:El Clásico
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The article on El Clásico is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ. |
|---|---|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
[edit] Highest scorer
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)
[edit] Blatantly POV, anachronistic and stereotype
"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)
