Talk:Sergio Busquets

Untitled

Well, you can't really call this an article, can you? Lucha-Method (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have changed his name from Sergi to the correct Sergio. Catalan fundamentalists please do not change back - if he was Sergi why would he choose to have SERGIO B. on his shirt. Carlito777 (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid calling people such things - you do not know their intentions. I created the redirect. That said, Barcelona's website uses "Sergi": [1]. By WP:MOSNAME, the most recognised name should be used. x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that Sergi is the right name to choose, but there is nothing wrong with Sergio, either. Both are fine. HaGamal 22:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Honours

In English we do not say Spanish League or Spanish Cup or even Spanish Super Cup. But we call them La Liga, Copa del Rey, and Supercopa de Espana. Also when watching a football game from Spain in the English language commentators, on Sky Sports, ESPN, BBC, ITV, FSC, Gol TV, etc..., refer to these competitions by their correct names. Therefore I ask you keep my revision of the honours section. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've moved page to Sergio Busquets

This is due to

1: his shirt name being SERGIO B. [2] 2: FC Barcelona's website NOW stating his name as 'Sergio Busquets Burgos' where previously, and incorrectly it was Sergi [3]

we do not need anymore proof that this is the way his name should be. please do not change this, as there is no logical reasoning for it, 99% of people will refer to him as Sergio upon seeing his shirt name and official site name.

XTomScottx (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think some man utd or madrid fan changed the page.

Catalan pronunciation for a Spanish name?

Sergio is pronounced as in Spanish, [ˈserxjo]. In Catalan it'd be Sergi [ˈsɛrʑi]. People in Catalonia as in the Balearic Islands and the Land of Valencia may also have their names in Spanish. So following that a person from Catalonia whose name's Jaime is pronounced [ˈʑajmə]? I don't think so! Catalans can have Spanish names as loan names, so the real pronunciation should be [ˈserxjo β̞usˈkɛts]. Many thanks! Jaume87 (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

About the Catalan pronunciation for his name, i have this audio file HERE for someone who pronounces it like buSHquets!! and also i watched many videos with the same pronunciation!! could anyone explain that!? Yehhanyos (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It's because Catalan does not have the same /s z/ as English and German. Catalan ones are retracted alveolar, not alveolar. It means that the tip of the tongue is straight, not lowered. It doesn't touch roots of the lower teeth. That's why Catalan /s z/ sounds more like English /ʃ ʒ/ - but they're not the same. Many Dutch dialects use retracted alveolar sibilants as well. --Helloworlditsme (talk) 07:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

section on Champions League incident

i see that an IP has objected to this section repeatedly. I would like to know policy based reasons they want it removed. It passes WP:N, (right now, it's pretty much the biggest thing he's done in his career), it is sourced (WP:RS), and is not unduly negative to the subject. (WP:BLP). The only reason it seems like they'd want it removed is because it's embarrassing to Sergio B, and in which case I would have advised him not to exaggerate the push in the first place. SirFozzie (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, WP:N guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia and do not govern article content. And further, it is ridiculous to claim that one minor incident is “pretty much the biggest thing he's done” in the career of a player who has started in and won both a UEFA CL final and FIFA WC final.

In regard to WP:RS, sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made, which is not the case here. There is a clear issue with neutrality (WP:NPOV). An article and its sub-articles should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. The referee sent Motta off for violent conduct. That is the fact, and to claim Busquets “exaggerated a push which caused” Motta’s sending off is endorsing a biased point of view. There is nothing to support the claim that Busquets’ reaction caused the red card. Motta’s action, in and of itself, contravened the rules of the game regardless of Busquets’ reaction. And it is nothing but speculation to claim that Busquets was peeking “to see if his simulation was being believed”.

As for the ad hominem claim that someone would want this removed because it is “embarrassing to Sergio B”, I would answer that this is clearly not the case here. I can’t speak for others, but I’m not Spanish (or Catalan) and I’m certainly no fan of FC Barcelona. I am however a fan of accuracy.

Jimmacol (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I would partly agree with Jimmacol, that the claim is badly phrased. The fact is that Motta was sent off for red card - but it was also a fact that Busquets was caught on video peeping through his fingers. It was also a fact that the media and Motta criticized him for diving - the article should cover that. It should be written that Busquets was criticized for diving - rather than Busquets dived. Since WP:RS and WP:N are met, there is a very strong case for inclusion - and simply no basis for removal. As Jimmacol very rightly pointed put, this is a WP:NPOV dispute - note that under WP:NPOVFAQ, LACK OF NEUTRALITY IS NOT AN EXCUSE TO DELETE IN MOST CASES. If there is a NPOV problem, the right way to deal with it is to edit the text - rather than remove it altogether, as Jimmacol and other IP users have done.Craddocktm (talk) 07:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It was an incident that ultimately has little relevance. Do we know include these details of suspected foul play in every WP article about certain footballers? Is there a list of dives and cheats performed by the likes of Ronaldo, Nani, Steven Gerrard and Didier Drogba on their profiles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.157.114 (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't every dive, it was during a Champions League game, and gathered significant press coverage, thus its notability. SirFozzie (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This wasn't even a dive though. He was hit in the face and went down. I really cannot for the life of me understand why this incident needs to be mentioned when hundreds of other football players get involved in similar matters and no remark is made on there profile. And if a player whose career achievements cast a massive light over the irrelevant incident, does need thisto be mentioned then it needs revising in the interest of neutrality. It also needs to be addressed that it wasn't a dive as actual contact was made by Motta's arm and Busquets face.

It would seem that there is an agenda by some to smear and discredit this person, possibly due to jealously and bitterness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.157.114 (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how the previous edit can be said to be biased. Equal coverage was given to the bodily contact made by Motta, Busquets' reaction, and criticisms of diving. As far as I know, nobody defended Busquets for the dive. However, your edit looks clearly biased to me. By adding "despite contact being made", you are suggesting the criticisms are unfounded, which is a form of original research. Your edit also mentions twice that there was contact, which in my view is undue coverage. Your own point of view regarding the incident is irrelevant: one of the pillars of Wikipedia is verifiability. What you think does not matter. What we should do is to edit according to what the reliable sources, like The Times, have reported.

You seem to be making a fallacy by suggesting a dive and bodily contact are mutually exclusive. However, the point about Busquets is he exaggerated the foul on him, which is also a form of diving. Your argument that other Wikipedia articles give no mention to the diving of other players is a bad argument; see WP:OSE. You made the assumption that the other Wikipedia articles are perfect and provide the normative guidance for articles editing - when they are not and do not.

What I see though, is not that someone is trying to smear and discredit Busquets, but that you are trying to cover up the entire incident. The incident is clearly relevant to Busquets career - how can it not be? The question is not one of relevance but of the appropriate weight to be given to it. The incident has been widely reported by the media; it took place in a Champions League semi final, with a lot at stake; a player was sent off. All these points to the fact that it was not a normal dive and deserves mention.Craddocktm (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly how relevant is this incident in the context of his career? His achievement by far and large overwhelm this incident. I presume you're a bitter Man Utd fan as they do seem to have an incredible problem with Barcelona and their players after the humiliation they suffered at their hands in the 2009 CL final.

Your edit and slant of this incident is a discredit to WP, and your attempts at suggesting it was a clear dive are not in the interest of neutrality.

There was definite contact, Busquets appeared to feign injury. There was no dive so the suggestion should not be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.157.114 (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no answer to my objections to your edit (except on the relevance point), but only personal attacks. The incident is clearly relevant since it was a part of Busquets career - the point is how significant it is to his career, which goes to weight. Neutrality is not served by pushing the stance of the article to YOUR point of view - it can only be achieved by presenting the facts in a balanced manner and allowing the readers to decide for themselves. I shall make the edits I suggested accordingly.Craddocktm (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It's clear now that their is an element of bitterness and bias regarding Caddocktm's contribution and views on this incident. It was, on the whole, an irrelevance in the context of his whole career, and we're talking about a multiple league, a World Cup and Champion's League winner here, yet this incident, which received moderate exposure needs to be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.157.114 (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It's becoming more and more evident that Craddocktm is incapable of allowing this article to remain unbiased and neutral, instead he seems to be pushing for it to remain incorrect and negative.

Deleting sources is unacceptable and resorting to lies is not what WP is about.

Motta made contact with Busquest's face, not neck. The video replays clearly how this and the media articles note it too. There was no "writhing" either, which I presume is merely your exaggeration of the events. Is this inaccuracy really relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.157.114 (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It is unacceptable to target more and more personal attacks on me, and in particularly ignoring the sources I cited. The 9th reference made it clear Busquets was pushed in the neck. And I have also raised the objection that the fact that contact was made need not be mentioned twice within a single paragraph. It was a fact that Busquets writhed on the ground - to say he merely went down is to downplay the whole event. It was also the exact wording as used by the sources. Next time you write, do your readings.Craddocktm (talk) 11:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It is clearly shown by video evidence that contact was made with the neck:[4]. That being said, I am prepared to agree to remove the reference to the neck/face since it is not significant to the event. However, there is a clear need to make reference to the fact that Busquets did something more than merely going to ground. He did not merely fall over but stayed on the ground for a period of time rolling around. This is an essential piece of information for a reader to make his own judgment of the incident, because the very point of the incident is Busquets was said to have exaggerated the effect of the contact. By removing reference to the writhing and adding "despite contact being made" after the media criticisms, the only possible conclusion to draw from the article is that Busquets did nothing wrong (since it is normal to go down and do no more after being fouled) and that media criticisms were not justified. That way of reporting it is to endorse a particular viewpoint, which is a violation of WP:NPOV. A properly written article should allow readers to draw BOTH positive AND negative point of view of the incident. Further, I wish to make the observation that you have added sources of your own, which defeat your previous argument that the incident was not relevant. There is now a significant number of articles that devote separate coverage of the incident, showing fully its high degree of notability. Craddocktm (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)#

Firstly, try reading Jimmacol's point above, and understand that WP is about facts, not opinions. Your subjective and deliberately biased additions to this article are frankly, disgraceful and the repeated suggestions from you that this insignificant event (in the context of his career) has any place in this article is embarrassing and speaks volumes about your intentions. However, if it is necessary that it remains, then it needs to carefully worded without language that appears the author has any bias and that the facts are clearly made out.

Secondly, the video replays clearly show contact was made to Busquets face, further backed up by the media reports of the match, not the opinion pieces you've provided.

And finally, unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that Busquets wasn't injured and did deliberately intend to have Motta sent off then it should not be speculated at as you continue to do so.

The facts are this: Motta raised his arm, made contact with Busquets face, Busquets went to the ground clutching his face as if injured. Speculating at the motives of either player reagrding this incident is not in the interest of neutrality.81.104.157.114 (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

This incident is clearly relevant to his career - to say that a Champions League winner should not have criticisms mentioned in his article is censorship. Significant criticisms are relevant no matter what he has achieved in his career.

It remains a FACT that no opinion was included in my edit:[5]. My edit is composed entirely of facts. If you wish to contest something to the contrary, point out which part of it is an opinion, something that you have failed to do. It is also unfounded accusation that I speculated Busquets was not injured and deliberately intended to have Motta sent off. No part of my edit suggested that. You must have problems understanding English properly or you must be misreading my edit.

It is ridiculous to say video replays showed that contact was made to the face - watch it again. Media reports are frankly speaking divided - I do not see how you can disregard the Telegraph and prefer the Independent instead. It is disingenuous to treat the sources cited by others as non-existent. And please respond to my suggestion to remove the reference to neck/face altogether.

Writhe is a clearly appropriate word to describe Busquets' actions: Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines it as "to make large twisting movements with the body" [6]. It is hence a FACT that he writhed on the ground, and is also supported by media reports. Also, practice what you preach and stop deleting the sources of others. Lastly, I expect an apology for the repeated accusations of bad faith, and I shall make a complaint if you make any further personal attacks. Craddocktm (talk) 10:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No one is making personal attacks, accept for you, your continued accusations of such are merely attempts to divert attention away from your subjective and factually incorrect additions to this article.

I will not be making any apology as there is nothing to apologise for. Your contribution to this article is a matter of concern and needs to be addressed.

I cannot make you see things you do not wish to, but you're arguing with video evidence and as a result is obvious that your deliberately trying to make this article about opinions rather than facts. It's a shame as WP is not about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.157.114 (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

People can see for themselves. Every entry you have made on this made is consists of large proportions of accusations of bad faith - in the absence of any concrete reasons. Look at WP:Assume good faith: making accusations of bad faith can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually in bad faith and harassment if done repeatedly.

I have raised issues that you have never responded. The only way I can deal with this is to assume you agree to my suggestions if you refuse to respond to them.

Video evidence is a factual evidence - even before a court of law it is not treated as an opinion evidence and I do not see how you can characterize it as such either. I am not arguing solely with video evidence either. I have listed other references that support my arguments, such as articles from The Times and The Telegraph.

This is the edit that I will make:

In the Champions League semi-final against Internazionale at Camp Nou on 28 April 2010, Busquets went down and writhed on the ground after Thiago Motta had raised his arm and pushed Busquets. As a result, Motta was shown a second yellow card. Busquets was subsequently criticized by the media as well as Motta for feigning injury..

Response to third opinion request:

First of all, I'm just a typical American with no interest in "football" or "soccer" as we call it, so I think my opinion is pretty fair in that regard. I would say the incident is not worth noting at all, in the context of this article as it currently exists. The main reason being that despite Motta being ejected, Internazionale won the semi-final. In fact, they won the final. In other words, there were no real consequences of the incident except two guys, two teams, and/or two teams' fans trading comments after the fact. The inclusion of that information appears to only be related to Busquets' character, as there is no other relevance for the incident that I can see. Further, since there is no section on his character in the article, this bit of information doesn't seem to fit anywhere here. I would recommend removing it and just replacing it with something that states he was on the team that made it to the 2009–10 UEFA Champions League Semi-Final, and that's only to add something to that section's last paragraph.—Bark (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Bark, you post a lot of sense, just as Jimmacol did before. However, Craddocktm is adamant that this irrelevant incident remains and any attempt to remove it is met with his threats. 81.104.157.114 (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bark. I note your arguments and appreciate your help in giving a third opinion. However, I do have a few points to raise:

• I agree with your assessment that the information is relevant only to Busquets' character, but would you not agree that Busquets' character on the football field is relevant to this article? If I create a new section on his on field character, would not the incident in issue fit perfectly into that section?
• Is the relevance of an act to be gauged solely on the basis of consequences? In philosophy, the school of thought the righteousness of an act is to be judged solely on the basis of consequences is known as utilitarianism, which has received its fair share of criticisms. By analogy it is not adequate to conceptualize the relevance of an act solely on the basis of consequences. Also, I do not know of any Wikipedia policy that supports the contention that consequences are the only relevant factor that should be used in determining relevance. As far as I know, relevance is to be determined by coverage by reliable sources, a factor that is satisfied in the current case. It has gone further than comments trading between rival fans and players: there is significant media coverage on the incident. Craddocktm (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

To address your points: 1) I would say no to the first. If there is many similar, well-documented incidents like this, then maybe, a weak maybe. The problem is that someone's character is more a subjective analysis than an objective relation of facts. Not only would care need to be taken in such a section, it's ultimately problematic and debatable. This one incident is not enough to justify an entire section by itself, in my opinion. 2) While I appreciate the informative philosophy lesson, it's irrelevant, in my opinion. This incident doesn't fit in the article. It seems wedged in there to me. I've offered my opinion, and I did take time to consider both sides. If my opinion isn't helpful in settling this dispute, I would suggest you guys move to the next step in conflict resolution. -Bark (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, Bark.. this received significant real-world review and when you bring up Sergio Busquets to a soccer/football fan, that is the first thing they remember "Oh, that's the guys who faked injury and was caught peeking through his hands at the referee to see if the ref had bought his act." That is the very definition of notability about a notable player. The IP (a fan of the team Busquets plays for) is trying to white-wash the article. The American Football example would be Spygate.. it's the equivalent of me (a Patriots fan) demanding that there not be any mention of it in the article on Bill Belichick. SirFozzie (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

But of course you strongly disagree. I didn't side with you. LOL. The Spygate incident is a little different, as that story has its own, dedicated Wikipedia article. In fact, I would recommend you go over and look at how that incident is handled here on Wikipedia. Sure, it has mentions in the 2007 New England Patriots season and Bill Belichick articles, but it is referenced in detail, in context, with a lot of documentation, somewhat briefly. The real substance of the incident is in the 2007 National Football League videotaping controversy article, which by the way, lists a lot of consequences from the incident in question.  ;)

If this Busquets incident is as notable as you contend, then where is the dedicated Wikipedia article on it? As an unbiased reader and in its current form, it doesn't fit the context of this article. Although you wish to retain the information, you haven't really provided any context for the incident. Please hear what I'm saying. The incident itself is described in detail, but the context of the incident isn't. What led up to it? What happened because of it? What's its enduring legacy? If the purpose of Wikipedia is to be informative, wouldn't the context of this, as you contend, rather notable event be included in the article? Why is this interesting? What's the historical significance, in as much a sporting event can have?

There also another weak spot in that although three sources are cited, they are all news articles written immediately after the game in which the incident took place. Also, all three sources basically come down to Motta protesting what happened. That's it. There's no independent analysis from sports commentators. There's really nothing except, "This is what happened, and Motta didn't like it at all." You claim this is Busquets' most memorable quality. "Right now, it's pretty much the biggest thing he's done in his career." However, you don't have any source to document THAT specific claim. If you could cite a source written months later stating that, essentially, "despite the time that passed, Busquets is still just that guy that took a dive to put the screws to Motta in that game a while back," your argument would be more solid.

Like I said before, I don't really care about this dispute. I care about the quality of Wikipedia articles. You guys asked for a third opinion, and I offered it. I explained why. I explained the rationale for why it shouldn't be included in its current form. I've pointed out weak points in its inclusion, which gives you a couple good suggestions on how it could be hypothetically shored up for inclusion in a different form. However, I've also mentioned the possible pitfalls of trying to shore it up that would run into problems here on Wikipedia. Ultimately, I have a feeling that you won't be able to adequately support the "shoring up" with various, reliable sources that you can cite, but who knows? I could be wrong. I don't really have anything further to add. I would recommend instead of engaging me in a debate-type exchange here on the talk page in an attempt to change my mind or sound off on a soapbox, you should look at how you could improve the article. That is my ultimate goal, and why I came here to offer an opinion in the first place. I would also recommend that care be taken to avoid Wikilawyering and to work together instead. Strive to make the article better. In my opinion, the article looks better with this incident excised.

If none of this is useful to you, I recommend you guys take this to the next step of conflict resolution. I sincerely hope you guys can bridge the gap and collaborate on an article that makes everyone happy. -Bark (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, SirFozzie, like Craddocktm, is now resorting to lies.

Quite why some people believe a player whose career has involved winning the World Cup, Champion's League and multiple league titles feels this incident has as much significance as those events is doing nothing but to confirm their bias and intentions.

Three people have now questioned the relevance of this addition, against the two of SirFozzie and Croddocktm who for some bizarre reason feel it should remain and insist on dramatising the incident s much as possible.81.104.157.114 (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If you guys can't agree on what should be done, I recommend you guys take this to the next step of conflict resolution. I sincerely hope you guys can bridge the gap and collaborate on an article that makes everyone happy. (My response above is there to read if you missed it.) -Bark (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a sensible solution, Bark. Thanks for you input. 81.104.157.114 (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Now, be reasonable. It is a fact that Busquets was criticized for feigning injury. This is a piece of fact, as evidenced by the Times, the Telegraph and the Independent which include criticisms of him. It is disingenuous to ask for sources when already a number of them are provided. The existence of such criticisms are facts, not opinions. However, to assert he feigned injury (without using the words criticized by blah blah blah) would be an opinion. Do you grasp this distinction? Also, Wikipedia has adopted policies that approve of opinions published by reliable sources: see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:OPINION. It is standard practice on Wikipedia is say someone was criticized for blah blah blah in the absence of endorsement of the criticism. It is perfectly ok to say Busquets was criticized for feigning injury because the criticism may be sound or unsound: see WP:ENEMY. You are free to include defence of Busquets' action, provided the defence is published by a reliable source and no undue coverage is given. By the way, you should discuss things on here, rather than repeatedly making edits without answering my objections or without giving any justifications. Again, you have failed to explain why you do not like the word writhe, which is the word used by the Telegraph: [7]. You have also failed to answer my question as to why you insist including reference to the area of contact.Craddocktm (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's stick with the facts rather than opinions and attempts to waiver fairness and balance. 81.104.157.114 (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not an answer to my questions. The existence of criticisms is a fact. Fairness and balance is achieved by adhering to the rules on Wikipedia, not to your own rules.Craddocktm (talk) 06:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If you do not engage in constructive discussion here, but continue to hide behind meaningless labels like fairness and balance without giving any reasons, I will revert your edit.Craddocktm (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You've made it clear you're not interested in debate though, Craddocktm. Three people here have raised questions about the necessity and validity of this addition as well as the content of it. You have ignored their comments and instead firmly set your sights on promoting your heavily biased and factually incorrect piece.

I personally do not see why it needs to be mentioned at all, it's a mere insignificance in the context of his whole career, something again, you ignore, yet feel it has place in this article. Do you feel it right additions are made to Cristiano Ronaldo's, Steven Gerrard's and Wayne Rooney's WP articles regarding their cynicism, what about Patrice Evra when he did the same as Busquets against Bayern Munich last season?

This existence, and particularly the wording, of this addition strikes me as being included for reasons other than the need to present a fair and balanced article. I suggest you being a Man Utd fan are incredibly bitter and jealous of Barca and their players, so look to slur them wherever the opportunity presents itself.

Bark suggested conflict resolution, which I agree with, yet you seem not to have mentioned or even acknowledged. Perhaps that is a wise course of action as you're never going to be happy with this article remaining neutral and unbiased. 81.104.157.114 (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I have made it clear I am trying to reach consensus here, something you have disappointingly refused to acknowledge. Three people have raised questions, and by my submissions above I have responded and refuted most of them. It is you, however, that have refused to respond to any of my comments. I did exchange words with Bark and Jimmacol, responding exactly to each of their points. Are you trying to be selectively blind?

The point is that Bark's comments are restricted to the question of whether the incident should be mentioned, and do not go to how the incident should be written.

Do not hide from the thrust of my submissions here. You have again refused to respond to my points. I have no choice but to revert your edit coz you have again refused to respond to my questions or give justifications for your edits.

Where did you get the idea that I am a Man Utd fan? Did you imagine it? I suggest you retract it coz I do not support Man Utd. However, by your wording alone it is clear you support Barca and your very words smell of POV pushing for me.

Your wording of the edit suggests to me that you are not interested in making this article neutral and balanced. You have consistently tried to present the incident in favour of Sergio Busquets, and any attempt to make it neutral as been branded by you as "biased".

Disciplinary matters and playacting have been mentioned in the articles of a number of footballers. For example, Paul Scholes is criticized for his disciplinary record. Another would be Sergio Ramos, who is said to be the most sent off player for Real Madrid. As for specific fouls, Maradona's hand of god is mentioned in his article. Drogba is similarly criticized for specific dives in his article. It is important to realize that Busquets is not getting some special treatment. I would agree that, if there is a significant number of reliable sources that devote significant coverage on Ronaldo's or Gerrard's or Rooney's gamesmanship, I would say yes to their inclusion.

I am actively considering dispute resolution. It is just that I am not yet sure which mechanism is the best for the current dispute.Craddocktm (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You've purposefully ignored the succinct comments by Jimmacol, Bark and myself, instead, have concentrated on pushing through your biased agenda.

You're only interested in smearing a person because of your intense jealously and bitterness. Perhaps you should try a football forum to express your concerns rather than vandalising WP.

I object to this addition, especially the amateurish way it is written and tacked onto the end. I ruins the flow of the article and simply looks like an attempt to smear Busquets rather than provide an informative piece. However, if it stays then it is important it remains as neutral and unbiased as possible; detailing verifiable facts and allowing the reading to make their own conclusion from the sources provided.

Deliberately omitting important information and using provocative language, as you have done, simply negates the purpose of WP. 81.104.157.114 (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, you are not responding to anything specific. How did I ignore the comments? I respond to every one of them. Disagreeing is not the same as ignoring. It's a very simple distinction that I should not be required to educate you of.

How is my edit amateurish? You did not say. The only difference between your edit and mine is (1) the difference between the area of contact; (2) the word "apparently", which is needless; and (3) writhe. I don't see how my edit is biased or amateurish or ruins the flow of the article. Which word of my edit contains provocative language? Again you cannot say. How did I omit important information? How is the area of contact important? Your accusations are groundless and you are a person who simply cannot be reasoned with.Craddocktm (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm responding to your points on the whole, but because they're not the answers you want, you ignore them, just as you did with Jimmacol and Bark.

How about you inform me of you objection to the balanced and neutral addition I've made. I've explained that yours in biased and provocative and have amended it as so it is now fair.

I could delete the needless addition altogether and argue from the viewpoint that it is wholly unnecessary, but given your agenda I feel that would be simply too much for you to cope with. 81.104.157.114 (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Your so-call "responding on the whole" is not a response at all, because my queries are specific. They are not even answers to my questions; then so course I do not want comments which do not address live issues. You are misrepresenting my editting behaviour here, which I see as an appalling behaviour:

• my response to Jimmacol: [8]
• my response to Bark: [9]
• my objections to your edit regarding contact with the face: [10]
• my objections to your removal of writhe: [11]

The fact is, you have never explained how my edit is biased and provocative. The only reason you have given for saying my edit is biased is that you think it is biased. Nothing else is offered. The only issue on which you have given some reasons is your view that the incident is irelevant. But then we have proceeded on the matter assuming it's relevant. Since then you have given no reasons to justify your writing up of the incident. If you feel your actions are justifiable, there should be no difficulty to answer my questions specifically. Isn't your failure to answer my questions specifically a very good indicator that you cannot justify your edit? Craddocktm (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't decide if it is hilarious or sad that you continually ignore my answer to your points whilst simultaneously forcing your views down other people's throats and deliberately ignoring the valid points others have made regarding this issue.

You fail to explain your issue with the contribution I have made instead simply think you have the authority to undermine me as if your opinion has more validity.

Try practising what you preach as you're coming across as a bit of a hypocrite. 81.104.157.114 (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Very disappointingly, you have continued to distort facts and dodge issues which you clearly cannot answer. I refuse to respond to you any more unless you start to discuss here in good faith.Craddocktm (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You fail to explain your issue with the contribution I have made instead simply think you have the authority to undermine me as if your opinion has more validity.

Try practising what you preach as you're coming across as a bit of a hypocrite81.104.157.114 (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

How about practicing a new line, as you're repeating what you've already said two months ago.. The information is reliably sourced (Independent, Daily Mail, and the Guardian) and notable. SirFozzie (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• I am new to the subject, but do fail to see where is the anon user trying to go with the removal of the Motta-Busquets incident: it's clearly written in a neutral way (smear?), well (very well) referenced, why should it be removed?

And i am the first (well, maybe the tenth...) to say i think Busquets clearly feigned the injury - there WAS contact - but it happens in sport (lots of teams/players) and he should not be crucified for that. Motta is not a nun himself...All in all, i think the current version is quite accurate, does not take sides at all (the Brazilian did criticize the Spaniard and urged UEFA to take action). Busquets is quite probably THE BEST defensive midfielder in the world right now, that incident does not shadow his career at all ("The Hand" did not do that for Diego Maradona, the drugs did more in my opinion).

Attentively, to all the parts involved - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

How about you explain your objection SirFozzie? Craddock is reluctant to do so, so maybe you have the courage to, instead of deliberately trying to exaggerate and smear?

It's not that difficult is it?81.104.157.114 (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I've stated it (repeatedly above), but I will go through it again. The incident with the exaggeration and Sergio Busquets being caught by the cameras peeking out between his hands to the referee to see if it had the desired effect is three things.

A) Notable. (it doesn't have to take over the article, but it needs to be covered) B) Covered in a neutral fashion (if anything it bends backwards too much..) C) Reliably Sourced (The three papers I noted and the stories are reliable sources).

Let's put it this way.. VascoAmaral above has a good comparison. Diego Maradona's Hand of God goal. I'm not claiming that a Champions League game (even a knockout stage game) compares to a World Cup game, but it is a big part of what people think of, when they think of Maradona. It is covered both under the Hand of God entry (which redirects to the match report), but also in Maradona's article, where it is part of the article. And as for the so-called exaggeration of you repeating yourself:

Try practising what you preach as you're coming across as a bit of a hypocrite. 81.104.157.114 (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

and

Try practising what you preach as you're coming across as a bit of a hypocrite81.104.157.114 (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

SirFozzie (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about your deliberate exaggeration and attempt to smear Busquests, *NOT* me. Please make an effort to understand what I post in future. Thanks.

You, like Craddock, are incapable of explaining your objection to what I see as a fair removal of inflammatory and provocative language that is not in keeping with the neutrality. We've already established that Craddock is letting his bitterness as a Man Utd fan cloud his judgement here. What's your excuse? 81.104.157.114 (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

TO THE IP USER: READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN IN THE LINKS PROVIDED. ALL MY REASONS ARE IN THERE. IF YOU REFUSE TO READ MY REASONS, THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM.

• my response to Jimmacol: [12]
• my response to Bark: [13]
• my objections to your edit regarding contact with the face: [14]
• my objections to your removal of writhe: [15]
• I also said you are free to defend Busquets' action if there are reliable sources that do so: [16]

AND Which part of the language is inflammatory and provocative? I think the only person who is being smeared is me. Craddocktm (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

So it seems to me that a third party came in to settle the dispute, he said to take it out, and people more or less ignored it and kept it in. I think it should go but I'm not going to take it out right away, I'd like to hear the reasoning for ignoring the third party who was supposed to solve the dispute.

I think all of your examples are flawed. Spygate has happened all of one time in the history of the sport. The Hand of God goal (a goal being scored with the hand) has happened how many times in a World Cup? None other times that I can think of. Maybe a few more times. But a perceived dive or exaggeration of a foul in a football game? My god, it happens probably once per game. 69.244.70.13 (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

References

Sergio Busquets

Is in Guardiola's starting XI because he can take a fall.

Is it a conspiracy when the entire football world acknowledges that this man has a particular tendency to roll on the ground in agony in reaction to the slightest challenges? I don't think so.

Commenting on this phenomenon on the man's own wikipedia page is surely not biased, or an attack on his character- it's something that's been noted by those who call the game, those who play the game, those who watch the game. Realize that this post is NOT criticism- falling has a tactical advantage, and when Busquets does it, he helps his team. Falling is a tactic. A tactic Sergio Busquets excels at. Noting that in an objective way on his wikipedia page is not a personal attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.134.156 (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

'Mono Mono' Incident

Whatever your team bias, it seems strange that last season's accusations of racist abuse are not included in this article. Busquets was eventually cleared by UEFA, but it was a hugely noteworthy event. Medusalith Boltagon (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Son of FC Barcelona goalkeeper

It surprises me that there is no reference to one important fact in his life: he's Carlos Busquets' son, a former FC Barcelona goalkeeper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.50.131.136 (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've just added this piece of information, instead of the "obscure player" part, which was rather a gratuitous statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.50.131.136 (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Champions League Incident Revisited

I am aware that this has received extensive discussion above. The section In the Champions League semi-final against Inter Milan at Camp Nou on 28 April 2010, he went down to the ground after Thiago Motta had raised his arm and supposedly pushed Busquets in the face. As a result of this action, Motta was shown a second yellow card and sent off, and Busquets was subsequently criticised by the media for apparently feigning injury"" continues to be removed as "biased" "unfair" a "one-off incident." etc. The section is notable enough for inclusion in my opinion, is well sourced and represents what the sources say. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Would appear you are biased and only advocate this inclusion as it offers nothing to the article on this individual, but suits your own personal agenda.Panhead2014 (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

My agenda is for you to follow the proper process instead of deleting content you don't like. If you can't explain why the claim and the source fail to meet Wikipedia standards then you will not gain consensus for the content to be deleted. Please refrain from making personal attacks. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks, your agenda here is quite clear. The content was deleted as it serves no purpose in adding anything of value to the article other than to paint a unfair, and biased portrait by creating a wholly unnecessary paragraph to the piece overstating an single incident in one match of a whole season. The ambiguous language used is unnecessary too, you know this. Panhead2014 (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC) I have thoroughly explained the reasons why this offending comment should be removed, I have yet to see any justified reason why should a provocative and inflammatory statement should remain from either Chris troutman or Flat Out. Do with of you have any intention of discussing this issue and explaining why you both continue to revert the edit, or are you simply going to issue threats? Panhead2014 (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is your contention? Are you saying that the paragraph is not supported by the sources provided, are you saying the the sources provided are inherently biased (notwithstanding that one requires a login and should be removed), or are you saying that undue weight has been given to inclusion of the incident? Flat Out let's discuss it 05:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Still no explanation from Flat Out as to why this comment should remain and what its inclusion offers to the article. Panhead2014 (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

That was a major and widely remembered incident in Busquets' career, removing it would be an unbalanced description of the footballer. The sentence is plainly written and supported by sources, it's not blaming nor assolving Busquets. It's simple like that. I guess only FC Barcelona fans would disagree. P.S: I want to point out that I'm not Flat Out, I'm the IP that reverted similar deletions a couple of times in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.246.0.76 (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I have happily discussed this issue on the talk pages as evident by my contributions, so I am at a loss as to why Flat Out feels the need to blatantly lie. Furthermore, Flat Out himself has still not offered any valid reason or explanation as what this comment adds to the article. He, and Chris troutman have attempted to have me blocked from contributing to this article and have made attempts to deliberately mislead the admin with smears and lies as evident here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Panhead2014 reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: ) Panhead2014 (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello? I just told you it was a major incident. Football fans around Europe (maybe the world) remember the scene. It's not like one needs to offer you an explanation to convince you that the paragraph should stay, you're not the owner of this page. Till now, you have been accusing others to have some hidden agenda to smear Sergio Busquets, as if merely mentioning this incident, even shortly, was some horrible slander. You even seem to imply that I'm Flat Out posing as someone else. Ask some admin to check, you'll find out that I'm really another person. Seeing as there's not been a real discussion but just groundless accusations, I think the paragraph should simply be re-inserted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.59.121.81 (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The necessity in claiming that there was supposedly contact is what exactly? If the argument that this incident, in the scheme of his illustrious career, is important to the article, then dressing it up in ambiguous and, frankly incorrect language needs to be addressed. And as Motta did make contact with Busquets, then why the need for the "supposedly" inclusion, which only succeeds in painting a picture designed to further discredit Busquets over this matter. I refer to this brief video www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkvCr3ys_So as proof contact did happen and therefore removing the word from the article is important in maintaining the neutrality of it. Panhead2014 (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you watch this video [17] where the scene is more detailed. Motta raised his arm and touched Busquets' face, but there was no clear push (and the sentence says "supposedly pushed Busquets in the face", not "supposedly made contact"). That could have been a light push or no push at all, we don't know, so we write "supposedly". And please stop it with the discredit thing, this is getting ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.49.159.166 (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

What is clear is that Motta made contact with Busquets' face, as is evident in both your video and mine. The inclusion of this ambiguous language is simply to add to the agenda of smearing the man rather than to offer a neutral and unbiased observation of the incident. Likewise, why no mention of if Motta intended to deliberately hurt Busquets' by raising his hand to his face? I cannot understand why such an irrelevant event is included in this article, but the consensus argues it should stay. It should therefore be appropriately rephrased in the interest of WP's guidelines on neutrality. Panhead2014 (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually it's your revision that is both badly written and not neutral. First, saying that contact was made means nothing, because in football there's a lot of contact between players, it could be normal contact or a foul and it's not clear if it's written like that. Second, the whole point of the controversy, and the reason that the incident it's notable enough to be reported here, is that the vast majority of the media talked about this incident as a simulation by Busquets, and, as you can see by reading the sources, they didn't simply write that "contact was made", but that, even if there was contact, that most probably wasn't a foul. So the previous version was balanced enough.

And give it a rest with your conspiracy theories, there is clear consensus about reporting the incident, as this discussion shows. You are the only one against it, but instead of accepting the outcome and getting over it you keep accusing everyone who doesn't agree with you of having an agenda, you seem hellbent on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.49.159.166 (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

If we are to understand the reason for the criticism he received for the antics he displayed then we must be clear in addressing the facts that led to them. Adding "supposedly pushed in the face" is ambiguous and presents the reader with an incorrect picture of the matter. Are you disputing there was contact despite the video evidence clearly showing there was, because if you are not then I struggle to see why you insist on removing it. And I did revise it so it was clear that contact was made to Busquets' face, something you have conveniently chosen to ignore. Panhead2014 (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

And to add, another thing you have conveniently ignored, is that I can see the consensus that argues for the inclusion of mentioning this incident, as I have now declared twice. What I feel is inappropriate though, is your insistence on bias. As Motta was disciplined for his actions and there was clear contact, we cannot therefore present the case insinuating Busquets was insincere and not genuine, nor can we assume that Motta did not have any intentions in committing the foul by raising his hand to Busquets' face. I propose that making it clear in the article that there was contact between Motta's hand and Busquets' face is appropriate as this action, by the letter of the law, is considered violent conduct and is justified by being disciplined by the referee. Panhead2014 (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope, "supposedly pushed in the face" is not ambiguous. "Supposedly made contact" would have been a false statement, but contact and push are not equivalent. There was contact, but that doesn't mean that there was a push. On the other hand, writing "made contact with the face" is misleading, because it could mean a simple brush, a slap, a punch, a pinch, a scratch, a carress, it's not like every time a player touches another player's face the referee calls a foul. A push in the face is clearly a foul, however we don't know if there was a push, so we write supposedly. Hell, this whole incident is reported here because it had a massive coverage, and it had such coverage because almost everybody (and I mean media too) believed it was a blatant simulation, omitting the objections moved by the media would make it seem like the referee's decision was correct and there was no doubt about that, and that would be a case of undue weight. The only reasonable compromise I can think of would be rewriting the sentence with even more detail, stating that there was contact, but it was not clear if there was a foul/push, something like "made contact with Busquets and supposedly pushed him in the face". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.49.159.166 (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It was never edited to "supposedly made contact" though, I have no idea why you persist on lying about that. The word "supposedly" was removed entirely. Nothing in the sources that have been added supports the use of such an ambiguous phrasing so I presume your desire to include it confirms my original suspicion.

Also, "made contact with the face" is not misleading at all, that is exactly what happened and by omitting it you are removing an important fact in the decision that was made to dismiss Motta. By your own admission Motta raised his hand and made contact with Busquets' face and by doing so was guilty of violent conduct, hence the sending off. This is fact, and should be included in the reporting just as it was in the media.

I would further point out to you, that not one of the articles linked to this incident actually express a personal view from the author/writer on the incident, but reiterate the condemnation expressed by Motta himself.

It also needs to be addressed that Motta actually received a red card for the offence, and not a second yellow. I have included this and cited it with a link to a BBC match report, which also supports the edit I have made regarding the inclusion that contact was made. Panhead2014 (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems you don't understand that making contact doesn't necessarily mean that there is a foul. Yes, the referee decided this way, but what gave the incident all this clamor is that many believe he was wrong and misled by a simulation on Busquets' part. So we need to state explicitly why the referee decided like this and no, it's not simply because there was a contact, but because the ref believed it to have been violent contact (a push). Your revision makes it seem like the simple fact that Motta made contact with Busquets' face was a foul, that the referee made the correct decision and all the media blaming him were wrong, almost as if you wanted the reader to think "oh well, there was a contact, so then the ref was right, all the criticisms by the media are baseless".

As if this was not enough, you read the sources as you seem fit. The BBC does say that Motta made contact with Busquets'face, but adds that "the decision was contestable", and that the "straight red card was a harsh decision" which you conveniently omitted. The first Telegraph article writes in its first lines:

Motta was sent off after 28 minutes when, having already been booked, he raised his hand and appeared to push Busquets in the neck.

However, the Barca midfielder went down theatrically holding his face and writhed on the ground in apparent agony between glances at the referee.

Motta said: "He always does it, I have seen it on TV and he is holding his face and then looking at the referee - it is terrible behaviour."

Only the part in bold is Motta's words, the rest is the journalist's opinion, so it's neutral. The second Telegraph article does not report a single word from Motta. The only article that does mostly report Motta's opinion is the Independent one. However, if it's still not enough for you I can link some of the sources I found that I linked here. I did not add all of them before because I thought it was not necessary, but if you still insist in deforming the facts as you like I will.

In the end, I proposed a compromise but you kept on doing whatever you want like before: you are still accusing others of having an agenda (I could say the same about you seeing the way you act, but I don't want to turn this into a verbal fight any more than it already is), you are still doing your edit wars (even though this time you avoided doing 3 reverts in less than 24 hours, I guess you did learn something from your blocks). So I will rewrite the sentence the way I proposed before. It plainly states the facts like they happened:

1. Motta touches Busquets' face (which per se isn't a foul)
2. Busquets goes on the ground
3. The referee decides there's been a foul (a push, a slap or some type of violent contact).

I will correct the yellow card thing and leave the link to the BBC. And note, neither other editors nor I never even mentioned his infamous peekaboo, or his theatrical rolling. Yet you still cry it's unbalanced. --95.239.158.103 (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

First point. Raising hands to an opponents face and making contact is considered violent conduct. That is a fact and is what has occurred he that resulted in Motta's red card. It should be noted. We can't prove either way if Motta intended this or not. Nor can can we prove that Busquets wasn't hurt by the action. Your contribution only paints one side of the picture.

You are omitting facts that are important in this incident. Why? What gives you the right to decide they are not worthy of mention?

And accuse you and the other anonymous IP of having an agenda because your only contributions to WP are to this article and to painting a biased picture of the incident ignoring important facts regarding what happened and what has been reported. Panhead2014 (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I propose the following: "In the Champions League semi-final against Inter Milan at Camp Nou on 28 April 2010, he went down to the ground after Thiago Motta had raised his arm, and appeared to push Busquets' in the face. As a result of this action, Motta was shown a straight red card and dismissed for violent conduct. Busquets was subsequently criticised by Motta and the media for apparently feigning injury".

It addresses the facts and reports in the cited sources: 1. That Motta raised his hands and made contact with Busquets' face; 2. That Motta was shown a straight red card for violent conduct (the previous yellow he received is irrelevant); 3. That Motta himself is quoted criticising Busquets' actions in the reports.

Everything here is supported by the citations. Panhead2014 (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Reply to the first message of 21:01: (sorry, edition conflict) No. Touching an opponent's face is not foul per se, even though you seem to ignore this simple fact. Check the rules if you wish. It's up to the referee to decide if it is, and in this case most people believe Busquets' behavior has influenced that decision.

And again no, I'm neither painting just one side of the picture nor omitting facts, what I wrote just states what happened. Let's review it:

In the Champions League semi-final against Inter Milan at Camp Nou on 28 April 2010, he went down to the ground (it doesn't say neither imply that it was on purpose, it doesn't mention the rolling and the peekaboo that made this incident famous) after Thiago Motta had raised his arm, made contact with Busquets'face (no doubt about that, and again it's neither accusing nor assolving Motta) and supposedly pushed him. (again, it's supposed, it could have been a push or not, it's not for us to decide)[10] As a result of this action, (here we say that the ref decided it was a foul) Motta, who had already received a yellow card, was shown a straight red card and sent off, (nothing wrong here) and Busquets was subsequently criticised by the media for apparently feigning injury. (here we say that the media blamed Busquets)

About your conspiracy theories, first, you've been accusing everyone who disagreed with you, not just me, and you started much before I came into the picture. Second, you can't possibly know what other pages I've edited, since my IP is dynamic. I've been editing sporadically for a couple of years on various pages, I started editing this page after you started your edit war, in case you didn't notice. --95.239.158.103 (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Reply to the second message of 22:20: It seems good to me, but it's similar to what I wrote before, what was the point in arguing then? --95.239.158.103 (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not agree with the inclusion of this item, but accept there is a consensus that argues it should be included whatever their reasons for it may be. It therefore stays. I argue about the wording of the piece as the contentious issues I see are whether there was intent on Motta's part in his hand-to-face action and Busquets' behaviour afterward. Neither should, in the interest of neutrality, sway to favour one side or the other, as it has done.

The facts of incident, that are reported in the articles should be mentioned though. Thanks. Panhead2014 (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This guy always instiste the same issues, even if everyone is against his ideas. The article has several sources and is a consolidated case and was well written. No need to be modified. You have been blocked twice disruptive behavior and insists on the same themes. You can not accept the will of the majority, or rather of all?

Gringoladomenega talk 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Gringoladomenega You have been asked to explain why you insist on deleting a credible source of information regarding this incident (BBC link). You also need to explain why you have deleted the fact that Motta received a straight red card for this incident. You have deleted and reverted edits without explanation and only now contribute to the discussion after I reported you. 95.239.158.103 has discussed this and we seem to be in agreement with what should be wrote.

Also, without getting personal, look at your own behaviour on WP, you have received multiple 3RR warnings and cautions for deleted articles and templates unnecessarily. Panhead2014 (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sergio Busquets. 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/20151222115834/http://www.cdbadiadelvalles.es/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68&Itemid=270 to http://www.cdbadiadelvalles.es/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68&Itemid=270
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210071244/http://www.rfef.es/index.jsp?nodo=39&ID=1120 to http://www.rfef.es/index.jsp?nodo=39&ID=1120

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) 21:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Sergio Busquets to Inter Miami

Busquets hasn't joined Inter Miami yet so we must keep it like it is right now. 212.52.246.35 (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree, there must be reliable sources to support that change of club. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

He has been announced. BBC, The Guardian, The Mirror, Sky, ESPN, Eurosport, etc. have confirmed it. Footyforever (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Appearances Note

To anyone editing this page take notes that only league appearances count stop changing busquets from 0 to 1 SubmachineOP (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2023

102.88.62.7 (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

sergios toral apps for barcelona is 719 and not 400

 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 (🔔 • 📝) 09:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)