Talk:Real Madrid CF

EU Flags

The EU flags are important in spanish football. As I've explained only three non-eu citizens can be on a pitch at anytime. Teams get around this by claiming passports from EU countries if they -the players- have ancestry from an Eu country or by nationalising a player after five years which is why some Brazilians have spanish flags e.g Roberto Carlos.

Real Madrid Worldwide fan group

Is it possible to add Real Madrid Worldwide fan site : http://www.realmadrid-club.net to the article page external links ?

Jerzy Dudek shirt number

it says in an interview here: [1] on the real madrid official site that Jerzy Dudek is shirt number 25 so i changed it on the current squad list and his personal page. so by process of elimination, Jordi Codina is number 13. Smithcool

Fascist Santiago Bernabeu

I just reentered the adjective "fascist" I added preceding the name of Santiago Bernabeu Yeste with a reference to Time magazine on April 16. His fascism is perfectly established and is recognized in Wikipedia's entry Santiago Bernabeu Yeste. I will not enter any war about how to portray Real Madrid's histry. If somebody takes it away agin I will not reestablish it but I do believe it is a mistake to dedicate a whole paragraph to this president and omit this fact.
-Please move this to Santiago Bernabeu's own page as it does not belong on the Real Madrid main-page.

Harvard University study about Real Madrid's followers

"A study at Harvard University concluded that Real Madrid "is one of the 20 most important brand names and the only one in which its executives, the players, are well-known. We have some spectacular figures in regard to worldwide support of the club. There are an estimated 287 million people worldwide who follow Real Madrid."

This part of the text has as reference an article that refers to the study but, besides some other references to the study, I could not find any traces of that study.

The source of Real Madrid's "9" UEFA Champions Leagues

Walter, thanks for directing me to that link that, in your opinion, validates your view that RM has conquered 9 Champions Leagues. I will first apologize because I do see that you were not lying! I'm amazed that UEFA, by some joke, decided to write that in an obscure page in between lines ... I will add that I have never seen an official ranking that gives RM 9 titles. UEFA does not publish it clear and loud, because they know it would be VERY controversial. And you know it too. If that page says that, then that page is wrong too. Whoever wrote that page does not have the authority to re-write soccer history and re-name a cup. So I'll go back to the essence of my point, which is that only RM fans believe (or wish) that RM has won 9 Champions Leagues. EVERYONE ELSE (I'm not shouting, only emphasizing) in the soccer world knows that it's simply a 6+3 -- which is impressive enough (the record-holder too!). Why insisting on fabricating a truth that is not exactly what it seems? UEFA can now change the name of a past competition, but that won't change those 6 cups. Sorry if the truth disappoints you, but there is no point in re-writing history, it's already written. (I'm thinking that your insistence in masquerading reality should be of interest to some journalists friend of mine ... I might even make you famous! Unless you care about the ridicule ...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soniafaram (talk • contribs) 07:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I simply pointed-out the source given in the article: http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/index.html . I'll allow others to comment. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Like the article quoted by Walter Görlitz shows, RM have won the European Cup 9 times. The competition was originally called the European Cup, before being rebranded as the Champions (sic) League. As I allude to higher up this same page, Liverpool FC have won the Football League 18 times and Manchester United have 7 Football League championships plus 12 Premier League titles. We still say that Man Utd hold the record number of English league titles, and in such a way Real Madrid have won a record 9 European Cups. As the article states "Madrid are also the most successful side overall with nine triumphs..." Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty widely recognised that Madrid have won 9 'Champions League/European Cup', or whatever, just as Spain have won 2 European Championships and not 1 Euro Nations Cup + 1 European Championship, as well as the English examples above. Pretty Green (talk) 09:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Supporters of Real Madrid C.F.

Supporters of Real Madrid C.F. was recently created. It looks very much like a machine translation. If someone could please either clean it up (I'm not a Spanish speaker) or merge it in to this article, it would be helpful. Longwayround (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like an admin has redirected it back here which, considering the poor state of that article, makes sense. Longwayround (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

cool RealCowboys (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Real Madrids first kit

So at im reading that Real Madrid's first kit was blue with a white shash or white with a blue sash but in fact that was for either "Football Club Sky" or one of the two teams that split from FC Sky in 1900, "New Foot-Ball de Madrid" or "Club Español de Madrid" im not sure which, when Real Madrid was actually founded as "Madrid Football Club" in 1902 they changed the kit changed to an all white jersey with white shorts and black socks, so technically Real Madrid have always had a white jersey since it's foundation. Please correct me if im wrong. Here are the links that helped me.

http://www.realmadrid.com/cs/Satellite/en/1193041516534/Historia/Club.htm

http://www.realmadrid.com/cs/Satellite/en/1202774158942/noticia/Noticia/1202774158942.htm?idEsp=1202774253642 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealCowboys (talk • contribs) 21:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Going by your first link, under 1900-1910, the second picture apparently shows the team in its first kit. Bobby (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Crest and shirt

(moved from lower done the page for clarity) Longwayround (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Real Madrid's traditional home colours are all white, although before its foundation the first kit initially adopted a blue oblique stripe on the shirt (the design was kept in the club crest); but unlike today, dark blue socks were worn. In the same year, the blue socks were replaced by black ones.

This sentence does not read well. How could Real Madrid have a kit before its foundation? Neither of the two references, one of which is archived at the Wayback Machine, make things any clearer for me. Longwayround (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Following myself up, this page which is referenced elsewhere in the article, may be helpful. It does not, however, look like an especially reliable source but, not being a Spanish speaker, I can't judge that effectively. Longwayround (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Scroll up, you'll find your answer. RealCowboys (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I've scrolled up but, sorry, I didn't find the answer. Would you please let me know where on this page to find it? Longwayround (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Real Madrids first kit RealCowboys (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

What Longwayround is asking, is how can we tell whether this is a reliable source or not? It looks like it isn't to me. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Am I to assume that the phrase "before its foundation" refers to Football Club Sky? I think this needs to made clearer. Longwayround (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Before its foundation, like before 1902. Yes Real Madrid have had kits before but they werent "Real Madrid" just yet, untill they were actually "founded" they changed to white shirts. So thats what im trying to expain that Real Madrid have always had white shirts since its foundation not before. RealCowboys (talk) 07:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. I do think that sentence needs rewriting. Four clauses in one sentence is generally too many! How about:

Real Madrid's traditional home colours are all white. The blue oblique stripe of FC Sky's shirt was incorporated into Real Madrid's crest. The new club replaced FC Sky's dark blue socks with black ones.

Longwayround (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

With a reference of ... ? Please don't say look above because none of the references so far have been reliable (a blog and a fan site). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Did not see the history link above. Carry on. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking at the history link but don't see the reference to FC Sky's stripe or FC Sky's socks. Longwayround (talk) 09:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the blue oblique stripe was clearly not incorporated until 1931 (when it was purple). Longwayround (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I dont think there is a reference but I just claimed what I seen on the pictures, the first link if you click on the 1900-10 button you see that Football Club sky was using dark uniforms and the white with the stripe on it but on the second link you see on the picture that Real Madrid's first uniform was an all white shirt. Im assuming that when FC Sky split up (remember there were two teams that FC Sky slit into) one of the teams, dont know which, in 1902 was founded as "Madrid football club" THATS when Real Madrid started using an all white uniform, the reason when I changed it was because it said that Real's first kit was the white the the blue stripe on it but in fact that was FC Sky's or the one of the two latter teams. As for rewording it, thats fine, whatever makes it easier for other readers to understand. RealCowboys (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You've seen colour in black-and-white pictures? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't be a smart ass RealCowboys (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

We're trying to write an encyclopaedia here. Being smart is what we're about. One day I'll understand why some people dislike that concept. Longwayround (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't being ironic or sarcastic, I'm very interested in how the colour was found in B&W images. Was there accompanying prose, even a caption, or was it from a different description that was placed in the image.

While we're at the education of editors, I'll suggest that anyone with a question about the motive of any other editor should read assume good faith before commenting. Failure to assume good faith could result in disciplinary action. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

what? RealCowboys (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Explain how the colours were determined.
2. Read and understand assume good faith. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Walter, when did I point out any colors besides white? I said they were using "dark uniforms" "DARK". I never said blue I never said black. Read carefully what I typed. "Explain how the colours were determined.", explain what? White looks the same in Black and White, a monkey could notice that. RealCowboys (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

and I like how you and longbottom over there snitched me out to get blocked from editing. thats a douchebag thing to do, ill watch your reverts just as you watched mine. RealCowboys (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

With respect, I warned you at 14:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC) that you should seek consensus before reverting edits as you appeared to be engaged in an edit war. You made two further reverts after that time. Please do moderate your language and please do watch reverts and other edits. I find it quite easy to lose track of reverts, particularly when I am convinced that I am right. I find that an early warning that I may be about to break WP:3RR helpful. Longwayround (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

RealCowboys pointed-out colours here: "it said that Real's first kit was the white the the blue stripe on it". The problem is that "it" (as in "it said") is not clearly defined.

As for accusations about "snitching", my first responsibility is to Wikipedia and not to any specific editor. When any editor comes into an article and starts throwing around slurs, insinuations, and causes problems, I sit up straight in my chair and pay close attention. If you want to keep drawing a target on your back, go ahead. I don't pull the trigger either, I just let admins make the call. I explained an element of WP:3RR to you at 21:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC). I don't have my sights set on you though. I was reported just before you were and after explaining my position I defended you. However, you walked over the bright line well after being reported. I didn't push you. I didn't urge you. I just sat back and watched you drive headlong into it, knowing that you were warned. Don't blame me for your actions.

And for the record, I've been blocked twice myself.

One final thing: stop insulting other editors. There's no cause for it, ever. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

COOL ANYTHING ELSE :D, are you gonna report me for being sarcastic as well? RealCowboys (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No. Just for being uncivil. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I use information from this article?

http://hala-madrid.livejournal.com/301276.html This guy seems to have alot of facts of Real Madrid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealCowboys (talk • contribs) 21:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a blog or at the very least a self-published source and as such does not meet WP:RS. Can you show that he's a recognized expert apart from the site? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Featured article

Does anybody else feel like Real Madrid C.F. should be upgraded to a "Featured article" and not stay "Good article"?RealCowboys (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Go for it. It's essential, first of all, to make sure that the article continues to satisfy the good article criteria. At the moment, I'm not convinced. Longwayround (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Protection Level

Can someone please change the protection level so only confirmed users can edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealCowboys (talk • contribs) 18:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

No. There's no need. Some anonymous edits are unproductive, but not all. It would go completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Lack of references

Could someone provide references for statements written in this piece of text?

"On 14 April 1931, the arrival of the Second Spanish Republic caused the club to lose the title Real and went back to being named as Madrid Football Club. Football continued during the Second World War, and on 13 June 1943 Madrid thrashed Barcelona 11–1 in the Copa del Generalísimo.[citation needed] The heavy defeat resulted in Barcelona supporters claiming that General Francisco Franco's régime had some part in fixing the result, though no proof ever came to light.[citation needed]"

It is well known that the 11-1 match was surrounded by a lot of controversy, the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia both provides references for such a claim. Therefore the statement made by RealCowboys must be regarded as biased until proven otherwise. In general he lacks references in much of his edits. --Suitcivil133 (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

you simply have to put citation needed] next to what you want referenced and leave it. Find neutral references and you're done. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

"regarded as biased until proven otherwise. In general he lacks references in much of his edits" You better watch of what your saying kid, you think just cause Barcelona is doing good right now doesnt mean there cant be any negative, any real barca fan would know that there was no proof that Franco threatend anybody. Any person with a gram of intelligence and the will to inform themselves can come to the conclusion that Real Madrid had as little of franquista as Barcelona did. If you have grown with the idea that Real Madrid is the personification of fascism and Barcelona the flag of liberty, it is difficult to change this idea. It's uncomfortable to change an idea. Much better to ignore the arguments -the facts-, shield behind legends with no support and repeat time and time again the same lies that some day end up becoming the truth. I declare that Real Madrid is a team mistreated by the media. It is difficult to find a positive note about the club in the open Spanish TV stations. If they lose, because they lost; and if they win, the debate centers on criticizing the player who did worse, the coach, or all of them. Its pointless to argue with someone like Suitcivil133, pure arrogance, cant even accept the fact that Franco financed the Camp Nou or that Cule translated in ENGLISH means ass. RealCowboys (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all learn some basic English. From your profile it appears that your mother tongue is English. That certainly does not look like being the case. For instance English is my 3 language after French and Spanish.

You are biased so no need to hide it. Most of your edits, if not all of them are without any references. Just pure claims. And you have been proven wrong by several people now, who unlike you, have been capable of using references. Just like in this case now where there are clear references in the text I labelled correctly as biased.

You better take a look at the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia pages. They confirm that RM were favouried during Franco's regime for obvious reasons. For example a Barcelona president, Sunyol, was killed during the Civil War. Barcelona as a city were always the most liberal city in Spain and the city that was influenced by the rest of Europe the most. It has also always been the most afluent city in Spain since the days of the Kingdom of Aragon. Even to this day Catalonia is the richest province. Also it is clear for all that a strong FC Barcelona threatened Franco's policy of a united Spain because of the independence movement in Catalonia that was expressed by FC Barcelona as a institution, among others.

Mistreated by the media? You are well aware of all the favours RM has had during it's history? Even recently when they were close to a bankrupcy until the council of Madrid bought RM assets for an overprice. They were even investigated for it later by UEFA but of course they were unable to prove it as it was in the interest of Spain and UEFA that RM would survive as a club in La Liga and in European competitions. Spain even changed a law, the so-called Beckham law that made it more favourable for Real Madrid to buy their Galácticos, a project that can be considered a fiasco in the sporting perspective looking at the amount of money that was thrown into it.

But well your initial and absurd claim that the 11-1 was not surrounded by controversy is astonishing barring in mind that Barca won the first game 3-1.

But since I can see that there is a user who have already provided REFERENCES about the controversy during that match the discussion is closed. It can certainly be concluded that your biased conclusion (of everything going according to the "plan") was wrong as also reported by the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia pages.--Suitcivil133 (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I've found a reference in Understanding Football Hooliganism by Ramn Spaaij (Amsterdam, 2006). Please remember, folks, there is a need for consensus before any significant changes are made and it does appear that at least one editor on this article may be at risk of breaking the WP:3RR rule. Longwayround (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

First, the name-calling by RealCowboys is not appropriate.

WP:BOLD says that any editor can make a change, no matter how severe. WP:BRD says that if an editor reverts, a discussion cycle should be started. Finally WP:RS says that sources are required, particularly for controversial statements. It's good to get important information into the article but make sure it's referenced. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing that many editors on the English-language Wikipedia are not competent users of Spanish or Catalan. If an editor is able to summarise in English the relevant parts of the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia pages for the benefit of those of us who are in that situation then I, for one, would be appreciative. Longwayround (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to write this one more time and make it clear, do not comment on other editors, whether it's about their intelligence or their English writing abilities. It is not appropriate. It must stop. Please see WP:PERSONAL particularly WP:NPA#WHATIS. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

RealCowboys:

I just took a quick look at your recent edits on this page, the Barcelona page and the Camp Nou page. What is common in all your edits are the lack of references which I have already mentioned. What is more worrying in terms of objectivity is that you somehow have a history of deleting correct information. For example the controversy that sourrounded Franco in the stadium section in the FC Barcelona page. A whole section compromised by 10 lines was deleted by you for no apparent reason despite having references. The same was the case in the Camp Nou page. Luckily both your edits were deleted again. It seems to me that you want to give an better picture of Franco and his relationship with FC Barcelona but you have problems with finding any reliable references if any. Wonder why that is.....

Moreoever (mind you I only took a quick glance on your recent edits on this page) you removed the information about Real Madrdi being founded by two Catalan brothers for no apparent reason yet again. Something that was included in the introduction page of the club until you deleted it.

"Fundado el 6 de marzo de 1902 por dos hermanos catalanes Joan Padrós Rubió y Carles Padrós Rubió bajo el nombre de Madrid Football Club, participa en la Primera División de España de la Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional desde su fundación en 1929, siendo uno de los tres únicos equipos que jamás ha descendido de la máxima categoría. Formó parte, en calidad de miembro fundador, de la Asociación de Clubes Europeos (otrora G-14), una organización internacional que agrupaba a los clubes más importantes e influyentes de Europa.[6]"

This is from the Spanish Wikipedia page.

The text CLEARLY states that Real Madrid (at the time of it's founding it was called Madrid Football Club" was founded by two Catalan brothers.

I could probably find more examples.

Regarding your claim of culés meaning ass in Spanish.

Culés comes from the Catalan verb Culers. This nickname (not of the club as you claimed but of the supporters) is indeed a slang of arse in Catalan but I have never claimed that it is not the case. That said I could not care less because Barcelona has several nicknames, which I have included in the English Wikipedia page. Something you again, for no apparent reason, tried to delete (among other's common nicknames such as Barca, Blaugrana and the nickname of the supporters (Barcelonistas).

A bit objectivity from your side would not harm. And before you reply, no I am not made any claims without any references on Wikipedia before so you might as well not included that claim in your reply.--Suitcivil133 (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Im really not gonna argue with some stupid kid, he is presistant on calling me "biased" ? LMAO kid you need to get laid bud. " The text CLEARLY states that Real Madrid (at the time of it's founding it was called Madrid Football Club" was founded by two Catalan brothers." you only look up stuff on wiki, ever thought about going to the actuall website and research their history? dumbass. I like how your all tough behind a computer, if you ever came at me like that in real life i'd whoop your ass. Im done this kid is obviously some glory hunter and just wants to sound smart by using the dictionary hahahahahahaha.RealCowboys (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The truth hurts ah? Calm down little kid. Are you even able to imagine that Wikipedia is largely based on references? A word you probably have never heard about, since you have not used any in much of your edits. I already found you out a long time ago and I will control what you write. I have already helped to delete some of your nonsense that was untrue. Finally it is funny that you act tough on the Internet while you criticise me for the same when I was not the one who started the name calling. Well done. Now go back and concentrate on MLS football for the future.--Suitcivil133 (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The only true thing is that after that famous 11-1 in the semifinals, Real Madrid lost in the final to... Athletic Club de Bilbao! FC Barcelona has rewritten history as a series of events always unfair to them, but this is not true, and leads to contradictions. For example, some of this propaganda claims that Real Madrid won 5 European Cups in a row thanks to Franco (when the isolation of the regime was just starting to finish), but ignore on purpose the famous 1961/62 European Cup eighthfinals, when Barcelona eliminated Real Madrid with very controversial (not to say clearly unfair) referee decisions in both legs! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maki87 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Links written by a journalist

I saw the following in a revert to one of my recent edits:

your providing links that are written by a journalist, unless either Clubs deny or advocate the issue, this should not be changed.

In what way are the links in this diff not from reliable sources? Longwayround (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Because I see that its written by someone who is in favor of Barcelona? Of course he is going to say whatever nonsense that happened, if I wrote something like Barcelona bombed the stadium, is it true? No. Use your brain, as of today there is no DEFINITE proof that any of that happend. RealCowboys (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, defines the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as "verifiability, not truth." "Verifiability" is used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them.

We don't look for definite proof, if that were the case then this article among many others would be very different. Besides, you refer to 'he' yet I cited two sources, only one of those was from a journalist. You are entirely welcome to challenge any statement with which you disagree. The best way to do this is to find another reliable source which states an opposing opinion and to include this in the article. In this way, the encyclopaedia retains its neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. I would be glad to see any reliably-sourced opposing view being included in this or any other article. I'm really not sure that the team I support is a rival!

If you wrote something like Barcelona bombed the stadium then, no, it would not be included in the encyclopaedia. You are not a reliable source. If your statement was published and represented as fact in, for example, The Washington Post or The Times, then it would be worthy of inclusion since they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The same can be said of books published by a university press. Longwayround (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Why are all English Real Madrid articles biased, mentioning false political connections or divides between sets of fans?

I ignore who did you get your history from, probably some Barcelona propaganda, but there is a bias and total inaccuracies in the main article and both rivalries' articles. I am from Madrid and have been living here 24 years now and I have read quite much about Real Madrid history (the club I support) and Spanish football history in general.

-The identification of Real Madrid as the establishment club is false. Even more if we are comparing both Madrid clubs. Let me remind you some facts. In the 1930s Real Madrid was one of the best clubs in Spain, and enjoyed wide support, especially from the left and the working class in Madrid. The purple band in its crest was introduces in 1931 (as they lost their royal title and the crown) as a reference to the II Republic (whose flag was red-yellow-purple, as opposed to the red-yellow-red, as a reference to the Comuneros, who rebelled against Charles I and V of Germany in the 16th century). This symbol persisted under the Franco regime due to utter ignorance. In the 1930s Real Madrid had players from all over Spain, including Catalonia, and, most notably the Basque country. Among their best players were the Regueiro brothers, one of them was the captain of the Basque national team that toured Europe and America during the Spanish Civil War, and who was proud to be a Basque. Juan Negrín's son (a prominent Socialist politician and prime minister of the Republic during the Civil War) played in their newly created basketball team. Rafael Sánchez Guerra, Real Madrid president from 1935 to 1936 exiled and was later imprisoned by the Franco regime. Furthermore, during the Civil War, the club was seized by the Popular Front. A newspaper (Informaciones) stated:

” …Un club democrático como el MADRID, con un plantel de socios netamente republicanos de izquierda, no podía temer nada. La Deportiva Obrera, que tiene un gran concepto de los principios deportivos, encontró justos los razonamientos de algunos socios, y juntos concibieron un plan que ha sido puesto en práctica y aprobado sin excepción alguna, por todos los sectores deportivos de Madrid. Reunidos socios del MADRID y directivos de la Federación Obrera acordaron designar un comité directivo que sustituya a la actual junta directiva (…)”

Which translates: "A democratic club like Madrid, with mostly leftist republican members, could not fear anything. The Workers' Sport Association, that has a great concept of the sports principles, found fair the reasoning of some members, and both conceived a plan that was unanimously approved by all the sports sectors of Madrid. In a meeting of Madrid members and officials of the Workers' Association, they agreed to name a comittee that substitues the current board of directors".

A communist colonel was a bit later Real Madrid president.

On the other hand, Atlético had been relegated after the last season before the Civil War (1935/36), but appeared in 1st Division in the first league of the Franco regime after winning a play-off because Oviedo could not play this season as their stadium had been destroyed during the war. They were merged with Aviación Nacional from Zaragoza (thus being renamed Atlético Aviación) and went on two win the first two leagues under Franco.

-The FC Barcelona propaganda which has caused this perception tries to rewrite history as a series of events where they are always the victims of the Franco regime and is full of contradictions. When they talk about the 11-1 of the 1942/43 Cup semifinals, they purposedly ignore that Real Madrid eventually lost the final against Athletic Bilbao, and even worse, that 1940-1953 (the harshest years of the francoist regime) where the worst years of the history of the Madrid club, winning only 1 Cup and finishing as low as 11th, avoiding the relegation play-off in the last game. They ignore the unfair referee decisions in both legs of the Real Madrid-Barcelona 1961/62 European Cup eighthfinals, but accuse Real Madrid of winning European Cups thanks to Franco. They also ignore that important people of FC Barcelona also enjoyed good relationships with the regime (who didn't then?), condecorated Franco and were favoured when selling their old Les Corts ground. They not only rewrite football history. The portrayal of Madrid as a francoist city is totally false and unfair, as this city suffered the most during the war. The Battle of Madrid was the only one Franco lost and the city was under siege during two years.

-Therefore, please eliminate that total junk of Real Madrid representing the political right and centralised state and Barcelona the political left. FC Barcelona can arguably represent Catalan identity, but Catalan nationalism includes very notably (and actually was created by) the Catalan burgeosie, which is traditionally right-wing. Real Madrid does not represent any political group, and history tells us that it leaned quite more towards the left.

-The socio-economic and political divide between Real Madrid and Atlético fans claimed in the article does not exist nowadays, and has never existed (and if it has, the other way round). We leave mixing sport with politics to Glasgow, and to a lesser extent, Barcelona. The North-South geographical divide is also completely untrue. It is true that Atlético enjoys more support in the neighbourhood near their current home, which is indeed by the river and South (but not very far from the centre), but it is not so in other Southern (and more working class) districts. It is also true, nevertheless, that they also enjoy more support than average in the area around their previous venue, Estadio Metropolitano, in the North-West, near the Ciudad Universitaria. Anyway, both clubs enjoy support in all parts of the city and the region.

Maki87 (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Maki87

I have one thing to say to this: [Citation needed]. No offence intended. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. If Maki87 is right then the above would make a relevant and interesting counter-argument and would help maintain NPOV. Longwayround (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)