Talk:Eurovision Song Contest: Difference between revisions

	Eurovision Song Contest is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 12, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 23, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed June 25, 2006 Good article nominee Listed June 28, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted July 21, 2006 Peer review Reviewed August 19, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:WP1.0 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Eurovision FA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eurovision, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Eurovision-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EurovisionWikipedia:WikiProject EurovisionTemplate:WikiProject EurovisionEurovision articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Europe FA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 24, 2009.

Archives

May 2004 – August 2006 July 2006 – September 2008

I have now twice reverted the addition of irrelevant information near the top of the article. One editor is adding the fact that the 2004 Contest was held in Istanbul. While this fact is undoubtedly true, it is not necessary to mention it in the place in question. It is a caption to the image of the Eurovision logo, which currently states that the logo has been in use since 2004. There mere fact that this was the first year has no particular relevance to the fact that that Contest was held in Turkey: it's not as if the logo was designed by a Turkish person, with a particular Turkish motif. Therefore it is superfluous to add the location of that Contest in the image caption. Indeed, the IP in question who reverted originates in Turkey - and one must question his or her motive. Does s/he really seek to improve the quality of this Wikipedia article, or does s/he merely have an agenda to promote Turkey? I leave this comment here on the talk page in case the editor wishes to enter into discussion (as opposed to edit-warring). EuroSong ^talk 22:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the fact that it was first used in Turkey has nothing to do with its development or use in later contests. Every time they introduce something, does the host at the time need to be mentioned, no. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that from 1978 to 1999 the songs had to be sung in one of the country`s official languages. However, in 1983 Finland presented a song called La Dolce Vita, in which parts (every part where the singer sung La Dolce Vita) were song in spanish/Italian. Would`t this have broken the rules? ABC101090 (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many more examples of foreign phrases being used in songs while the language rule was in force than Finland 1983. The rule actually permitted the limited use of non-national language phrases in songs - I believe that up to three lines of text were allowed. Another good example is in Croatia 1993: the text contained the lines: "Don't every cry" (the title!); "Never say goodbye" and "My Croatian sky". All the rest was in Croatian. EuroSong ^talk 21:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. That info I believe is not in the page.ABC101090 (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Iraq is part of the European Broadcasting Area, shouldn't it then be eligible to participate in the contest? The current map does not include Iraq, so I think there may be some caveat I am missing. Chedorlaomer (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The map shows countries that have participated, not ones that can if they want to. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The map under the Participation section indicates eligible countries that have not participated with the color orange... shouldn't Iraq be colored orange then? Chedorlaomer (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be in the zone, but it is not part of the European Broadcasting Union, so it is ineligible unless it joins. The countries in orange are all members, but don't participate. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Chedorlaomer (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're rapidly running up against the three revert limit here (if not having passed it), so lets discuss it. Looking at one version of the change introduced:

nor has a conclusive solution to the problem of 'Eastern bloc' voting, with the introduction of so many ex-Soviet nations into the EU, been achieved.

[e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest&diff=278111910&oldid=278108517]

My objections to this are multiple:
i) While jury voting has been introduced to remove the influence of blocks, to say that it is not a 'conclusive solution' is to pre-suppose what will happen at the next contest. It is possible that it *will* be a 'conclusive solution', and it is not our place to judge yet what will happen ahead of time.
ii) Blocks other than the former Soviet countries have been noted - notable a 'Nordic' block of Sweeden, Denmark, Finland, etc. and a former Yugoslav block. To highlight the former Soviet block are especially notable is prejudicial towards the people of those nations.
iii) You keep saying the 'EU' - the EU is the European Union, while the contest is organised by the EBU (European Broadcasting Union), an independent institution. Membership of the EU and EBU are entirely separate. The expansion of the EU in 2004/2007 didn't have a notable affect on the contest... in fact since 2007 no EU nation has won the contest [Serbia and Russia].
iv) We already mention the existence of block and that juries are an attempt to counter them. You are restating information which is elsewhere in the article.
v) Adding 'and controversy' to the section title doesn't actually add any information, or clarify anything.

Please discuss any comment here before adding this information into the article again.

--Neil (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nor has a conclusive solution to the problem of 'Eastern bloc' voting^[1][2][3] been achieved.

Above is the included information, the selection you quoted is incorrect. The way this info is being targeted for removal is very suspect. Reasons for the Eastern Bloc's (perceived) effect on the Eurovision Song Contest (and the reactions it provoked in the rest of Europe) are clearly sourced. It's the principal reason behind the re-introduction of an 'expert jury'! Anything else is obfuscation and I think editors desperate to remove this information need to give real reasons why they think that is acceptable.

i) Nothing is being presupposed. Read the sources.
ii) No 'Nordic' block has been the source of such sheer contention. However if you'd like to include sourced information about it, go ahead.
iii) I said it once and removed it entirely. View the edits.
iv) The 'mention' is nowhere so specific or accurate throughout the article; in fact it prefers to gloss facts rather than state them.
v) The words are not synonymous.

I hope these issues can be resolved, I can appreciate this may be a 'pet' article for some of you, but the inclusion of more accurate and unbiased information should be a priority. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ia) The sources are all media articles which are stating a single opinion. If the EBU does not state 'Juries have been reintroduced to remove block voting in Eastern Europe', this then it cannot be reported as fact. It is fine to say 'Media sources (references) have speculated that the reintroduction of juries is a response to block voting in the East.'

ib) Similarly I do not read anywhere people saying that the juries *will not* be a solution to block voting. This just seems to be your opinion. We cannot know how the result of the 2009 song contest will play out!

ii) Fine, but unless the EBU says that the Eastern block was the cause it cannot be regarded as fact.

iii) I see it twice in the history, but this has been corrected now.

iv) The whole paragraph on the reintroduction of juries is in a section which talks about political voting, and states 'certain countries do tend to form "clusters" or "cliques" by frequently voting in the same way.', which seems a pretty explicit mention in my opinion, while still remaining NPOV.

v) They aren't, but the section lists general criticisms, and not specific disputes, so 'criticism' on its own is fine.

I have no problem if you want to say 'As a result of public outcry regarding alleged politically motivated voting in the 2008 contest Juries are to be reintroduced in 2009, with both juries and tele-votes having equal weighting. The media has speculated that this is a result of widespread Western dissatisfaction with Eastern nations voting as a block.' [with references at the appropriate places of course].

I don't really understand why you insist that this is not a 'conclusive solution' (also 'conclusive' is a slightly obscure work, maybe the near-synonyms of 'decisive' or 'definitive' would read better). --Neil (talk) 10:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also think some parts of this section are problematic, it makes some assertions very general. One example: The Contest has long been perceived as politically influenced. Who perceives this? 'Perceived' on its owns is a weasel word. The sources given actually give the sources of such criticism i.e organisations, individuals. This is also unbalanced as it lacks representation of sources which disagree, such as some comments by the EBU. nor has a conclusive solution to the problem of 'Eastern bloc' voting been achieved Do all reliable sources agree it exists? I doubt it. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use the source:

http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=1363

"In Belgrade, we saw a difference in judgment of the public and the back-up juries, and we believe a combination will make the show more interesting," said Svante Stockselius, Executive Supervisor of the Eurovision Song Contest on behalf of the EBU.

Very clearly, the win by Russia last year was egregious enough (in terms of discrepancy between the public vote and the jury vote) to lead to the reintroduction of juries. In the past, Mr. Stockselius has frequently emphasized the agreement with regards to the winner between the televoters and the jury.

121.90.247.186 (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article suggests there may have been 3 'blocs', not just the 'Eastern Bloc' also suggests that this may not actually be down to politics but similarities between countries. I have no idea if it's useful or not to this article, what do you think?

^[4] BananaNoodle (talk) 10:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I put this in the discussion about the rules page, when I meant that the 2009 rules contradict information in THIS article.

The 2009 rules (http://eurovision.tv/upload/esc2009rules.pdf) say:

"1) Should there be a tie for the last position in a Semi-Final (because two songs have received the same number of points on the basis of the televoting results) or for the first place in the Grand Final, as well as any other situation where a tie occurs, the winner shall be the song which has obtained points from the highest number of countries. If the tying songs have received points from the same number of countries, the highest number of 12-point scores shall be decisive. If the winner still cannot be determined by this procedure, the number of times ten points have been awarded shall be the deciding factor. If necessary, this method shall continue until account has been taken of the number of times one point has been awarded.

In the very unlikely case that after applying the above procedure in a Semi-Final there is still a tie concerning the qualifying ranks and non-qualifying ranks, the tie shall be resolved by giving precedence to the country which was earlier in the running order for the Semi-Final in question. The same procedure shall be used to resolve any other ties."

This clearly breaks ALL ties (there was always a debate about ranking countries as "=n" when tied for a place other than first or tenth or whenever it mattered).

This says (contrary to the article) that after exhausting the tiebreakers (very unlikely, of course) among two (or more) songs tied for first place, the song performed earlier will be declared the winner. This actually does come into play for ties near the bottom of the rankings where two countries can have an identical set of votes.

121.90.247.186 (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that historically majority of the successes were MOR pop is true, but I don't think that it is true that Lordi were the first success of the deviating formula. Actually, the musical direction of the festival began to change soon after the withdrawal of the orchestra (oh, how I regret them doing that ...). Actually, the right after that a period of new countries winning the ESC with predominantly dance- and ethno-pop has begun (and still not ended). So, to be specific, I think that the winners like Padar&Benton, Sertab, Ruslana or Helena Paparizou were actually pretty far from the "middle of the road". 195.250.209.136 (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'The most points ever done by a competitior is bya norwegian. Alexander Rybak i 2009, Moscwa. '

I'm not even too sure what this was supposed to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.4.76 (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In addition, France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom control territories under their sovereignty outside of Europe. The Kingdom of Denmark, of which Denmark is the hegemonial part, includes Greenland in North America."

The only one I think you could mean would be Cyprus but this wouldn't be right.

Thanks, Sophia —Preceding unsigned comment added by SophiaSpl (talk • contribs) 19:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not Cyprus. There are a lot of Greek islands off the Turkish coast though, and a reasonable geographic argument could be made (and has sometimes been made) that they are in Asia. This has been discussed several times at Talk:List of countries spanning more than one continent (see sections 15, 21, 77 and 88), but currently Greece is not mentioned in that list, reflecting that these islands are generally not considered Asian (although they are closer to mainland Asia than to mainland Europe), just like Malta is not generally considered an African island (although it is closer to mainland Africa than to mainland Europe). So it all depends on how we define the continents (I once raised this at Talk:Continent but no discussion ensued), and we should follow common usage. So, in short, for the conventional definition of "Europe", Greece does not control any territory outside Europe. (I'm even more baffled by Italy being in this list. Huh?) —JAO • T • C 12:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]