Talk:Eurovision Song Contest/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

I have been informed that articles going over 30k are fine, and it is not a barrier to achieving Featured status. Please participate in the Peer Review (as linked at the top of this talk page) and let me know your suggestions. Ten heads are better than one.. so you might notice some obvious mistake or omission which passed me by! EuroSong ^talk 03:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Left on a contributor's talk page - copied here for others' reference

have a certain number of guidelines. One such guideline is that mentioning relative time differences should be minimised. So for example, to talk about "next year's Contest" when referring to Eurovision 2007, makes it clear that the text was written in 2006. That means, this text will become out-of-date next year. The best articles should not do this: they should be static information, which will be true for as long as possible. It is even borderline, to mention such things as "As of 2006, the country who has entered the longest with no wins to their name is Portugal." - because who knows? Portugal might win next year*; rendering the article out-of-date. It is also not a good thing to mention the 2007 participants, Czech Republic and Georgia, as if they have actually made their debut. The 2007 Contest has not happened yet. This information is speculative and subject to change. In fact I seem to remember some news about the Czech Republic intending to enter one year recently - but then they changed their mind and decided not to. Such information should not be included in the article until the end of the three minutes of those debut countries' songs - because up until then, anything can happen which might mean their participation is cancelled! EuroSong ^talk 21:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

* Yeah, right

---

Okay, we got it Featured :)

Remaining points to consider, as of now, are:

• Can we find a better image than the plain generic logo?
• Can we set some criteria for successful artists' inclusion in the list in the "Winning artists" section?

Hopefully we can get this on the main page on the date of the 2007 Contest. EuroSong ^talk 23:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've changed this statement:

The name "Eurovision" was first used by British journalist George Campey in the London Evening Standard in 1951, where he dubbed the Contest "Eurovision Grand Prix".

for two reasons:

• It says he gave the contest that name in 1951, however the contest was not even conceived until 1955.
• The reference link that was provided said that he gave the name 'Eurovision' to the
  Eurovision Network
  only, not the contest.

If anyone can prove me wrong, feel free to add that back to the article and leave a note here. Thanks! --Lewis R « т · c » 21:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right. I can't believe I let that one pass me by! Of course, what I meant to say is just that the name "Eurovision" was first used in relation to the network in 1951 - and then the name for the network was adopted by the Contest when it came to pass in 1956. Of course, the wording before says that he actually dubbed the ESC with the name Eurovision. That is indeed incorrect, as can be seen from the reference. Thank you very much for pointing this out: I appreciate it. I have now re-added the information, but in the correct context. Now it is mentioned alongside the first mention of the Eurovision Network, and not as a reference to the Contest actually being named as such by the journalist. Thanks! EuroSong ^talk 21:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This was an interesting and growing section. Is there merit in restoring this as a separate page?

I'm not sure, really. It might be considered non-encyclopædic, to have a whole separate article just on "The Eurovision Song Contest in popular culture". On the other hand, I can tell you one thing: interesting and amusing though the section was, it does not belong in this article. Such lists are rarely encyclopædic; and on the occasions that they are, they need to be exhaustive and definitive. The ESC has been mentioned so often, and in so many contexts, that making a definitive list would be impossible (and far too long even if it were possible). Besides, the list which existed before had a heavy Anglophone slant to it — there were only two references to the Contest which did not originate from the English-speaking entertainment media. Although this article is written in English, on the English-language Wikipedia, Eurovision is an international topic and equal weight should be given to its influence in all countries. If you do think you can come up with an exhaustive, encyclopædic, and non-Anglophone-biased list of references to the Contest in popular culture - and then write a separate article about it - then I wish you the best of luck! :) EuroSong ^talk 07:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be impossible to come up with an exhaustive list, any more than it would be possible to come up with an exhaustive list for Leprechauns in popular culture, Nuclear weapons in popular culture or any other other of "in popular culture" articles on Wikipedia . A "Eurovision Song Contest in popular culture" article would be in the same spirit. Dbromage

This is one of the most noticeable and might I say, notorious aspects of eurovision. Why isnt there a mention of the effects of neighbor voting, ethnically related countries voting for each other (greece/cyprus, Romania/moldova), minority voting (albanians in macedonia/turks in germany/russians in the baltic states) and so on?

There is a mention. It's under the "Criticisms" section. There is even a reference made to a document which discusses the neighbourly voting patterns - and another reference made to a document which explains the reasons why neighbourly voting occurs. Did you not read it? :) EuroSong ^talk 18:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

See - that's what I said. People won't be reading the entire article on once sitting. People go to WP for a quick reference check or to get some "infotainment", you can't force them to read that end-to-end. This is why I think the voting patterns sections should go with the general voting section :D Regards, Bravada, talk - 19:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hehe.. I do see your point. But if I moved the "political voting" paragraph to the "voting" section, then what of the criticism of the music? It would be sitting alone in its own section, which would not really be suitable. Also there is no other section with which to merge it. I have already stated my reasons for not including a whole separate section discussing musical styles. Would you then suggest I removed it altogether? That could possibly be done: but then I might be accused of being POV, in the sense that the entire article includes no mention of the criticisms levelled at the Contest's music whatsoever: something which is associated with the Contest in many people's eyes. What do you think? Is the article better as it is now, or would it not matter if the musical criticisms were removed and the voting criticism merged with the voting section? Like you, I am also "too involved" in the article to judge this objectively. Perhaps.. EuroSong ^talk 20:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

To answer in short - no, I think you might reconsider your stance on the section regarding musical/performance style and perhaps team up with some other editors interesting in music/performing arts to help develop it further. Moreover, as a stopgap measure it wouldn't be wrong to have a section entitled simply "Criticism of musical styles and presentation", which would later be developed into a section highlighting not only criticism.

Some projects I think it would be good to pester:

WikiProject Writing about music is inactive, perhaps because there was only one username ever on the participants' list, and that's only for a day (!) Also I would try to mobilize the fellow members of our own WikiProject Eurovision - what we need is all kinds of write-ups on Eurovision music, more or less NPOV (you can always elicit some information from a POV text) to compose something from. I will also try to dig out something whenever I find time... Bravada, talk

- 20:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Successful artists

What about Gina G? Not a one hit wonder..her entry 'Ooh Ah Just A Little Bit' is possibly the biggest selling hit to come out of the contest ever [that needs to be checked of course, if it's not Gina it might be Abba but i think she is well up there as it was one of the very few true international hits, most eurovision winners are not, most dont sell outside their country of origin, it would be good to include here a chart regarding that]. As a direct result of the show the record went straight to number 1 in the UK where it was a platinum record selling millions around the world and culminating in a top 12 place on the US Billboard Hot 100 which is pretty well unheard of for acts from this contest, again, outside of Abba. Gina subsequently had at least 5 more chart hits and a even over a year later her debut album 'Fresh' shipped over 600000 copies worldwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.34.107 (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely forgot about that, I should've brought that out earlier, but this is actually fairly important - some good criteria need to be set for the inclusion in the list. I am not into the "golden record" or chart things, but I believe some sensible criteria can be established - and then all potential winners should be checked against that. That said, I would rather the criteria would automatically exclude winners from, say, 5 last years, because I believe only enduring success is worth recognition - many artists rode on a short wave of popularity of their ESC entry, but it quickly faded away. Bravada, talk - 00:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments: I totally agree. I can't believe that I myself didn't think about that list more carefully when I reviewed the article. The list was originally written from what my personal feelings were about the success of the artists, but it excluded Ruslana (from whom I have never heard in any other non-Eurovision context). Then someone else added Ruslana, and I thought "okay then - she must be more successful than I knew". But yes, I sort-of agree with you about excluding recent winners. The thing is, it's hard to define such criteria for inclusion into the list. The criterion for the list I originally made was: "Have I personally heard of this artist's success" independently of the Contest?" With such singers as Nicole and Johnny Logan, I have heard of them commercially (and I am not a person who pays a lot of attention to the non-Eurovision commercial music scene!) separate from my own interests in Eurovision. With artists such as Eimear Quinn and Charlotte Nilsson (whose success has, I believe, only been in Scandinavia and only riding on her Eurovision win), I have not. But my own personal "having heard of" criterion is, in retrospect, not a very scientific way of judging these things :) The problem is: what criteria should we use? I have a mild temptation to remove that list altogether, but don't really want to because I believe it is important to mention at least some artists whose careers have been successful following their Eurovision win. EuroSong ^talk 07:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Since it seems we both don't we have a good idea for the criterium, I guess you could ask at the music-related WikiProjects - I believe they might have had to deal with similar issues before. Bravada, talk - 11:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Ruslana isn't famous! Why Helena is deleted?--

22:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell me how her Helena's has taken off after her Eurovision win? Does she have a lot more success now than she already did with Antique? EuroSong ^talk 22:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes she has more success than she had with Antique(that was the reason they split up). Helena is the only winner of the last years that made a hit in Europe after her victory in Eurovision. Actually Mambo seems to be more successful in Airplay Charts around Europe than My Number One.Also My Number One entered at 45 in Billboard Hot Dance Charts and the single will be released this Tuesday in the US. --

11:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

We need to establish some rules here FAST! People keep adding whoever to the list, it is now quite contradictory to what the article says, as it seems that almost EVERYBODY achieved great international success after their win! Bravada, talk - 08:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we do. Thing is, what rules? I could decide some arbritarily, but that would just be me. I had a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians, but I don't really see how I can just ask the members there for opinions on how to make criteria for this list. For now, I have done the following:

• Removed the recent additions
• Excluded artists from the past 5 years, as per your suggestion
• Put each artist on a separate line in the source (doesn't affect the display, but makes it easier to see and edit)
• Added a comment asking people to discuss additions on the talk page before editing.

It's not perfect, but hopefully it can stem the tide until we think of something else. EuroSong ^talk 09:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The maps need to be changed, especially the first one. There should be more countries in yellow (active members, e.g. Egypt), but they can't even be seen on the map, let alone coloured. Also the map contradicts with the article:

11:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Do you have a map which includes Egypt?
• The information on Tunisia is unreferenced: the 50^th anniversaty book doesn't mention it, and a Google search only returns Wikipedia-based sources, and ONE from ESCtoday - and I'm not happy about including such information based upon only one reference. Can you find another one maybe? - Actually I did just find a good reference here. Thanks: I shall include this information when we can get a better map.
• The unveiling of the logo image looks quite nice: but what about licensing, I wonder. We might have to ask www.eurovision.tv if we could use it.

Thank you for your suggestions. EuroSong ^talk 13:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This section has no relevance or interest to anyone outside the small coterie of fans attending the event, why is it taking up precious space in the article?

The information is interesting, encyclopædic and properly referenced. If you think it has "no interest to anyone not attending", then perhaps you should check out the article's Peer Review, where it was mentioned that this section was of great interest – by someone who had never been to the Contest. This article is about the Eurovision Song Contest. That means that if it's to be a good quality encyclopædic article, it needs to cover all aspects of the Contest: not just to mention how it it shown as a television programme. EuroSong ^talk 07:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that you should use coded phrases in your competition. I mean that you can decide what every phrase must content something special. You can decide modulation, tact and other things - just to make sure that it was the right composer that composed and no one else. I also think that you should make other rules about "WINNING". I mean action on scen is something else than the song that is performed. Performing can also be divided into different tasks 1) singing 2) dancing 3) how the actors are dressed 4) What happens on stage? can you winn just by performing a show? 5) how the music is played instrumentally.

Eva Kristina Jonsson Tegelgatan 7 716 30 Fjugesta

Sweden —The preceding

) 12:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Countries that have never entered Eurovision

The countries that have never entered Eurovision, although they could if they wanted to, are the Czech Republic and Georgia in Europe, Algeria and Tunisia in Africa, and Lebanon in the Middle East. Lebanon was already planning on entering in 2005 but withdrew. This list should be mentioned in the article somewhere. JIP | Talk 11:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The Lebanon issue is mentioned in the article already. EuroSong ^talk 19:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but are the other four countries mentioned anywhere? JIP | Talk 06:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Czech Rep and Georgia are entering in 2007... Celticfan383

Isn't this list (which now includes nine countries supposedly elegible for entry in the contest) somewhat ambiguous? It's already explained in the same section that geographic location or EU membership has nothing to do with a country's qualification to enter. Technically (assuming that this is true) we could list every known country in the world in this paragraph, but it might be easier just to remove it altogether or just list the actual European countries that have never participated. ~~ Peteb16 14:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Not every country in the world would be mentioned. It's about the country having a broadcaster which is an Active Member of the EBU, and is in the European Broadcasting Area (not the same thing as geographical Europe). Read the article - eligibility is explained in detail :) EuroSong ^talk 17:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. :) ~~ Peteb16 17:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The European Broadcast area includes Palestine ( unless I'm missing something ) but the accompanying map doesn't. Shouldn't it?Skopelos-Slim 09:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The map is not one of the European Broadcasting Area: it is one of the eligible countries. Not all countries in the EBA are eligible: they must have a broadcaster which is a member of the EBU. See the page here. Palestine does not have an EBU member. Actually, there are countries in North Africa which should be on the map, but which are not... because I can't find a good enough suitable map EuroSong ^talk 13:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what about the Vatican? It's a sovereign country, innit? But is it a member of the EBU? JIP | Talk 07:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

First, i saw this article and thaught that "Well, There must be some standard infobox for this (type of) music event. When i searched around and found out that there weren't any "music event" infoboxes at all, i made a dedicated ESC infobox. I later changed the name of the infobox to Infobox song competition, and removed the EBU logo.

People should remember that the purpose of infoboxes is primarily to give a quick overview of the company/organisation/annual event ect. - And not necessarily "infobox exclusive" GDPs and numbers.

A single, frames low-res jpeg logo in the right of the main article of this vast project was a little odd introduction, I think.

Please accept and

19:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I like this addition. The infobox could be used in many different song competition articles. Nice. --Bob 20:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The infobox is ugly, unnecessary and adds nothing to the article. I also dislike Ssolbergj's edit warring. EuroSong ^talk 21:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There is obviously a disagreement here that needs to be resolved. No more edits should now occur involving the infobox until a concensus has been set up to gauge general opinion. A decision should then be made based on the concensus rather than two peoples conflicting opinions. May I respectfully point out that neither

WP:3RR

.

If I may give my own opinion, the idea that an infobox template needed to be created specifically for this contest is rediculous. {{infobox television}} would've been appropriate. It is, after all, a television programme. ~~ Peteb16 21:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest
Current: Eurovision Song Contest 2008
File:Non-free image removed.jpg The modern logo was introduced for the 2004 Contest (in Istanbul) to create a consistent visual identity. The host country's flag appears in the heart.
Website	http://www.eurovision.tv

Hello, I think an infobox is needed and the {{infobox television}} fields are not so useful. The most relevant comparisons are Academy Awards or FIFA World Cup. What I would really want is a convenient way to go to this years contest! Additionally, a song contest infobox should contain some fields like:

• style of music
• region
• last years winner(s)

In any case, I think something like the hacky use of the {{infobox award}} here is already very nice, but perhaps someone would find the time to do this properly? Thanks, Vesal (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Having just checked the EBU website at [2] it would seem that the Vatican City may be entitled to enter the contest as well. There is a Vatican Radio station, although I'm not sure if they would need to have a TV station as well in order to enter. The current pontiff does have a better singing voice than his predecessor, although having a conclave of cardinals to decide their votes might not be allowable under the current rules.Moldovanmickey 00:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)MoldovanMickey Preceding comment repaired Peteb16 01:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A TV station is needed to enter. While not specifically mentioned in the Contest rules, references are made everywhere to the televised broadcast of the show by the participating EBU members. Obviously, Vatican Radio would be unable to do this: therefore they would not be able to follow the rules of the Contest. EuroSong ^talk 23:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

After 2002, Turkey's winning in the contest, festival's face has been changed.. New logo, new system, televote compulsory.. And the festival became popular as like as in the first years.

Anyway.. There arent any writing about Turkey..

Even when someone tries to add eurovision-turkey.com which announces turkish and english eurovision news.. it is deleted..

It will be good to add eurovision-turkey.com and Sertab Erener

~~ Maverick16

I feel it important to point out that the look of the contest (consistant logos, branding, semi-finals etc.) was changed in 2004 not 2002. Latvia won in 2002 and Turkey won in 2003 during the former single part contest style. Also the addition of external links should hopefully fall under

WP:EL guidlines, I'm not sure some of the existing links really fall within these guidelines, so it's best not to add insult to injury by adding more. ~~ Peteb16

22:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Maverick, Thank you for following my advice and starting a discussion here on the talk page :) Now, I get the feeling you're Turkish. From what you write here, it looks like you're taking exception to the fact that there is nothing written about Turkey in the article. However, I can assure you that the reason I reverted your changes is not because there is any kind of anti-Turkish feeling here. No - none at all. There are many countries which are not specifically mentioned in the article, aside from in the debut year list. Let me clarify a couple of points here:

Firstly, the reason I removed your eurovision-turkey link is because it is a nationality-specific website. The current list of links includes no specific national sites (they are all general ones). And if the Turkish site were to be added, then it would only be fair to add at least one nationality-specific site from every country which participates. This clearly would not be right, as the list would get far too long. Wikipedia articles are not collections of links. Besides, this is the English language WIkipedia: all links and references should be to English language websites - unless in the rare situation where the ONLY source of reference available is in another language. I do believe there is a Wikipedia rule about this somewhere.

Secondly, please read the discussion some way up this page regarding which artists should be included in the list of artists who have achieved success. I originally based this list upon which artists I personally had heard of, independently of my Eurovision interest. However, it was pointed out that this was not the best criterion for measurement, and it has been agreed that artists who have won within the past five years shall be excluded from the list anyway. This is not a decision made to discriminate against Sertab (whose winning song I LOVED by the way!) - but simply a method of keeping the list in check, where we see whether the artist has become successful internationally after a reasonable period of time. If you disagree with this measurement, then you are very welcome to add your own contributions to the discussion under the proper section above.

Thanks, EuroSong ^talk 22:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

ESCKaz and Oikotimes are also national fan pages.. --Maverick16 22:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you still insist.. You can see that turkish eurovision site also has english part.. 22:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)~

ESCKaz and oikotimes have grown up from being nationality-specific sites, into being recognised primarily for their internationalism. Also, they have established themselves as large, well-recognised sites within the community. The fact that the Turkish site "also has an English section" is neither here nor there: it is primarily a Turkish website, whereas the others are primarily international ones. International visitors don't go to eurovisionturkey as a primary source of information. Well - that's my opinion on the issue. Maybe other people want to contribute too. You see, Maverick, this is about "building consensus". If many other people come here and disagree with me, giving reasons, then maybe the consensus will change. See? Other comments are welcome. EuroSong ^talk 08:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is your personal idea(about -International visitors don't go.....)-.. You should see the rank of eurovision-turkey.com on alexa.com.. The rank of the site is more than most of the links listed there..

Please be realistic what you are talking about.. If you tell me that you dont want to allow Eurovision Turkey just for it is the site of Turkey i will stop this discussion here and i wont continue to argue.. But be sure that oikotimes and esckazakhistan are also national fan sites..--Maverick16 19:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. Looks like we have another person who likes to act like a poor little victim. "It's because you hate Turkey!" - he cries. Pity that some people can't accept that the reason they don't get their own way is simply because they're not following the rules properly (like building consensus): not because everyone else is out to get them. EuroSong ^talk 17:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As a totally objective non-European Wikipedian who had never heard of Eurovision previous to stumbling upon this article today, I have to support (for what it's worth) Eurosong in his stance. He/she has explained his/her reasoning and rationale quite well concerning the topics raised by Maverick16. There is clearly no 'anti' anything in the responses, no hidden agenda and a perfect example of NPOV. In fact, I think the whole article is quite a good example of a multi-national / multi-cultural article being presented fairly to all and partial to none. Well done! CanadianMist 16:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that somebody is having the time of his life by spreading farcical information on several Eurovision winners. As I am French and try to get information for the French Wikipedia Eurovision winners section, I am a bit annoyed. At first, I noticed the joke on the Linda Martin link where she is described as "heavily botoxed", at first I was hugely amused (although I have no idea how she looks) but thought administrators were seeing to that because in the discussion page, there was a reminder of how they wanted the article. Then it started to occur to me that while creating some links for the French pages, I had discarded information that sounded strange or out of place and yesterday I realized that there is somebody having fun. I think all winners links should be looked at by administrators especially Linda Martin, Bobbysocks and the clairvoyant story, Udo Jürgens described as a womanizer (perhaps it's true but on a Wikipedia page, it does not sound serious) and his "family links", Massiel's birthdate and place and strange "political" biography, I don't think the Spanish link mentions it and perhaps Teddy Scholten or I can't remember who is supposed to have a hit by "recording instrumental versions of The Shadows' hit. Consequently, I'm not sure I can rely on the English version to create links for the French version. Something like "heavily botoxed" has no consequence because you know immediately it's a joke but more troublesome are other information that do not sound farcical and might be repeated and translated on other links out of good faith.

Kindest regards,

P.R —The preceding

) 06:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Capitalization

) 17:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. WikiProject Music and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums are mere WikiProjects, and their guidelines are not set-in-stone policies which should override all and every mention of any song title or band name. While I do accept that your capitalisation policy has a wide degree of support from many writers, you also need to accept that it is not the only single correct policy for capitalisation in the English language. Different publishers have different house styles, and no one style is more correct than any others. You can even read Wikipedia's own article at Capitalization#Headings and publication titles, where it lists many capitalisation policies.

Also, yes I know Google isn't definitive, but if you take a look here, you will see that "Save Your Kisses For Me" is by far the most common capitalisation of this song title, excluding those pieces of text written only in upper-case, only in lower-case, or in sentence case. Are you going to write to all the authors of those web pages too, to beg them to change their capitalisation policies? Or do you only concentrate your activity on Wikipedia because AWB is convenient and capitalisation is a

particular bee you have in your bonnet? EuroSong ^talk

21:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that

Wikipedia:Naming conventions is an official policy. The convention it refers to is widely accepted on English Wikipedia. Is there any particular reason why you would prefer to keep it inconsistent? Jogers (talk

) 22:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be complete and utter chaos if we capitalized every article based on how it was printed by the publisher. Google has little bearing here; most people online capitalize every word because it's convenient. –Unint 15:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The naming conventions should stand here. That, as well as the Manual of Style, should control questions of capitalization. Both are written to avoid silly edit wars like this one. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me who thinks that the country sub-sections should use the same style as each other? By this I mean compare Greece to Romania. The tables are different for a start and the Romanian page uses colour to show the highest result the country has ever recieved (surely colours should only be use on table for a first place entry, as on Greece's page?). Also, look underneath the external links on the Romania page, a small table linking to all pages for Romanian entries year by year. This would be a great feature on the sub-sections but I haven't seen it on any other pages. The main table on Belgium's page has a lot more information that other pages: who the composer was for each of the songs, the conductor etc. Why not on every page? I'll help with changing them as much as I can, but being a newbie to Wikipedia, I don't know how use all the tables, "safely" edit them, etc. I'd appeciate thoughts on this matter and any help! --Gottago 14:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Your message is about articles other than this one: they are not "subsections", but they are separate articles. Please discuss these issues on the relevant talk pages of those articles - or leave a message at WikiProject Eurovision, if you want a general message for all country-specific articles. Thanks! EuroSong ^talk 15:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"From 1957 to 1970 (in 1956 there was no restriction at all), only soloists and duos were allowed on stage. From 1963, a chorus of up to three people was permitted. Since 1971, a maximum of six performers have been permitted on the stage."

Should this start "From 1957 to 1962..."? Also the cited source (the 2005 rules) doesn't mention anything about numbers in previous years. Thryduulf 12:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

the article makes references to the many genres that have been seen in the past. maybe beside the genre's there could be a significant example or two. just for clarification. because i read nordic music, and i had a hard time finding a specific band/song. ...Patrick (talk, cntrb.) 04:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Several images in this article don't have a proper

09:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I also removed the last fair use image without rationale from the portal link. – Ilse@ 16:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The categories Eurovision Song Contest by year and Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest shouldn't be included by the use of the protected navigational templates used at the bottom of the article. – Ilse@ 11:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Archived FAR at

) 14:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Images

I removed three images which had been tagged for deletion. This was mainly motivated by the increased visibility of the article because it's on the main page, not because I necessarily think they should be deleted. If you would like to comment on those deletions, just get the link from the diff. It's seems like there are plenty of images for this article in the meantime. If you think that one of those images will obviously be kept and can provide better licencing info, feel free to re-add it. Savidan 16:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Whats the theme music called? Peace keeper II 18:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Te Deum, by Marc-Antoine Charpentier --Calítoe.:. 19:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, but was this article selected as the AOTD for today in order to coincide with the contest in current events? · AndonicO ^Talk 23:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes :) EuroSong ^talk 22:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I am new here, but I saw that there is a spin off festival missing onth main page, which is the European contest for minority languages. More on: http://www.liet.nl/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liet-Lavlut Hope it is useful. So the question is whether you would like to add it on the main page.

Interestingly, Serbia is only the second country in the entire history of the contest to win with its debut entry. The first was Switzerland, in the 1956 contest. But then, that's a given - it was the first contest, so any country would have won with its debut entry. JIP | Talk 06:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually Serbia is considered to be the only country to have won ESC with its debut entry. The reason for that is because on the first contest in 1956 all 7 countries participated with 2 entries each. The winning song in the evening, "Refrain" by Lyz Assia, was the second of the two Swiss entries, the first being "Das alte Karussell" performed by the same singer. So, paradoxically enough, even on the first year of Eurovision no debut country won, as Switzerland had debuted some minutes before! :)

Some go even further and claim that Serbia should not be considered as a debut winner either because, though it was the first time the country participated as an independent state, it had already participated as Serbia-Montenegro in recent years and as Yugoslavia in earlier years. Blue cave (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh... interesting point there! However, for the purposes of Eurovision participation, we count countries as individual entities according to which flag they entered with. So, for example, when "Yugoslavia" entered, it was actually represented by more than one TV station from different Ex-Yugoslav states - but nevertheless in the eyes of the EBU - and in the eyes of the Contest - they performed under one flag, no matter what the year. When Serbia won, it was the first time they had participated as such a political entity in their own right - and therefore it counts as a debut win. If Scotland broke away from the UK and became independent - and subsequently entered the Contest and won with their first entry, then this would also count as a debut win. Irrespective of the fact that they've won previously as part of the UK, it would nevertheless be a new political entity - with a new Eurovision identity. EuroSong ^talk 00:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, if Scotland votes for independence in 2010 and decides to enter Eurovision, then the remainder of the UK (which in theory should have a new political name) would also be entering Eurovision for the first time as a new state. (CKnight16 (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

About that Yugoslav victory; I think it's actually a Croatian victory, because the band was from Croatia. -- MR.CRO95 26 March 2008, 22:44 (CET) —Preceding comment was added at 21:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That's my opinion on the subject too Eurosong. I've only added it to mention the objections raised by some, but not the majority, of euro-fans. My true objections focused in Switzerland as a debut winner, as it is widespread regarded as having won with its second entry, making Serbia the first debut winner of ESC history. Still, imao if Azerbaijan wins ESC2008 it deserves the true incontestable debut winner title as a participant with no previous ESC experience. Anyway...good job on the article. Hope u've heard the first entry of 08 to be made public, a snippet of the Andorran entry "Casanova".:-) Blue cave (talk) 11:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the Wogan commentary? He has done the commentary for as long as I can remember, and, for Brits at least, is a HUGE part of the Eurovision contest.

Considering that Britain as a nation have stopped taking the Eurovision seriously in recent years, Wogan's sarcastic, often drink-induced commentary is a real treat for those who watch it with irony. Indeed, it is hard not to, nowadays, seeing how seriously other countries take this silly little talent contest. If it wasn't for Terry Wogan, many people, including myself, would not watch it.

Then why, in the Eurovision page, is there no mention of him? —The preceding

) 09:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Because he only commentates for the BBC broadcasts. If they add Tel, they have to add everyone else. Incidentally, I think 'drink induced' is a bit unfair and I bet the UK aren't the only ones not to take this thing too seriously. ~~ Peteb16 10:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

But Terry himself often comments that drink is the only way he can get through it. And what is the problem with adding other people? If we add Tezzah, other countries can add others if they see fit. Also, on not taking it seriously, have you not seen the presenters they have each year? They act as if it's the biggest thing in the world.

To some countries it possibly is "the biggest thing in the world". If you're a Serb, for example, and have spent the last 20 years being vilified by the rest of Europe and the world, then all of a sudden you win a trivial song contest, which you get to host the following year, it's a major coup. For Serbia, hosting Eurovision has been a chance to show that Serbia is more than just negative headlines on the news, bombing, genocide and sanctions. It's a massive opportunity for them to show the rest of Europe that Serbia is more than that. It's massive free publicity and that's why they take it so seriously. (CKnight16 (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

I'm sure the drink thing is a joke and if we add all the commentators, the subject will outway other more relevant topics. Also, I don't know about most countries but apparently the Finnish commentator was making tongue-in-cheek comments too. After the UK performance he commented that he'd like to be a fly on the wall of Terry Wogan's booth and when Serbia disappeared on the way from the green room to the stage he joked that the escalators must've broken down. ~~ Peteb16 18:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If that's all other countries commentator's can come up with then its really rather tame. Wogan is biting and in many ways actually nasty about the other entries, not simply trying to be a little bit funny. As said, its the only reason most British people watch.

-

Finally someone who agrees with me. Tell me, anti-Wogans, do any other countries have a commentator who has been doing it since 1980 and that people see as an important part of Eurovision. To Brits, Terry Wogan=Eurovision and Eurovision=Terry Wogan

It matters not one tiny little bit how "important" Wogan is to Eurovision in the UK. This is an international encyclopædia article, and no bias should be shown in favour of one country. If the article were entitled "Public perception of Eurovision in the UK", then yes - Wogan would deservedly feature prominently in such an article. But it's not: it's an international, unbiased article. If we were to start discussing the public perception of the Contest in the UK, then we would have to give examples of how it was perceived in most, if not all other countries who show the broadcast. This would not only be a very messy section, but it would be almost impossible to list references. Can you find a reference for how Eurovision is perceived by the public in Monaco? No? Thought not. Remember the rules for Wikipedia, please. EuroSong ^talk 17:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you have to? This IS the English Wikipedia page for it. You wouldn't have a section about a French translation for Monty Python and the Holy Grail on the Monty Python page. Also, as pointed out, the other countries don't have, as far as I know, a commentator as symbollic of Eurovision as Terry Wogan.

The English Wikipedia means that it's an international encyclopædia - in the English language. It does not mean that bias should be given towards the UK, USA or any other such country just because our native language is that of the encyclopædia. In a perfect world, ALL articles on all language versions of Wikipedia should be basically the same article - but just translated into the relevant languages. The point still stands: this is a general Eurovision Song Contest article, and "public perception of the Contest in the UK" does not get any higher priority in the article than, for example, "public perception of the Contest in Albania", just because this article happens to have been written in the English language. EuroSong ^talk 15:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we just add Wogan in, and if it means so much to anyone to add their own commentator in, then let them? If no-one cares enough to change it, then I don't see the problem. And my question still stands, which you have never answered: have any of the other countries had a commentator who did it as much as Wogan?

Because this is a

Featured Article, and there are strict rules as to what should be in articles and what should not. Really good articles don't have "people adding in little bits if they feel like it". As for your other question, it's irrelevant. Wogan is irrelevant. EuroSong ^talk

01:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hahhahaha and why don't we list all the other 41 commentators from other countries?? Why is this Terry Wogan so important, because he's ignorant and has no respect for something that to others mean more?

How on earth is Wogan ignorant? He knows more about Eurovision than anyone else in the country. Would you rather some boring commentator who took the silly little contest seriously? And yes, my question is relevant. If he's the commentator who's been doing it for the longest time, then this has to count for something.

This discussion no longer belongs here, as it goes beyond the description of an article talk page. That's all I will say further about this matter. EuroSong ^talk 01:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does belong here. You have continued to ignore my points simply so you can get your way. Something tells me you would thrive under a fascist government. So I shall repeat: "If he's the commentator who's been doing it for the longest time, then this has to count for something." And yes, that is internationally. If you can prove me wrong, then do so.

Please be civil to other talk page users, and please sign your comments. Information regarding Wogan's length of service in the contest is already in the Terry Wogan article where it is best placed. If it were in this article it would be classed as an unbalanced perspective of the contest as a whole. Even if it were mentioned he was the longest serving commentator, to balance it out (and prove the point) a list would need to be created showing all the people ever to commentate for the contest by their length of service. Then, by some sheer miracle, find one or more citations that verified that information. By then, this new part of the article would've lowered itself into being an 'indiscriminate collection of information'. No one is trying to get their own way here, just maintain the Featured Article status. ~~ Peteb16 21:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey hey kids! I'm back! I just noticed this on the Terry Wogan Wiki page: "Many European countries broadcast the BBC's coverage of the event rather than going to the expense of covering it themselves." So... whadayasaynow? - person who has been asked to sign his comments

The previously mentioned points still stand. EuroSong ^talk 10:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If "many European countries broadcast the BBC's coverage of the event rather than going to the expense of covering it themselves", then wouldn't that make Wogan an international commentator... or something... - Mr. Sign

Yes, but again, as EuroSong said, the previously mentioned points still stand. The only way adding Wogan would work is if he did the commentry for the entire EBU. ~~ Peteb16 12:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

He's not "an international commentator". As Pete said, he holds NO special status with the EBU at all. The fact that some (not "many") other countries broadcast the BBC feed is not because they choose Wogan's commentary per se, but because they're English speaking and the UK broadcast is therefore the natural choice: for example in Australia it makes much more sense to take the British commentary than it does to take the French one! And even if any country did take Wogan's feed specifically because they wanted his commentary because they preferred it to any other, then such information would still need a reference in a FA-class encyclopædia article. Sorry, but I don't know quite what your agenga is here: do you work for Wogan's press office? It seems that you simply want to promote the man more than he's due. Please accept the fact that The Eurovision Song Contest is a lot, LOT bigger and more important than just one television company employee who happens to provide the commentary track for one of the participating broadcasters. EuroSong ^talk 17:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

My agenda? What a bizarre question... I am simply one of the millions of people who watch Eurovision solely for Wogan's commentary, and feel that he is not being given enough credit. I could equally ask what your agenda is. Have you been scarred by a traumatic childhood experience with Terry Wogan which causes you to hunt him down ruthlessly, putting him down every step? It sounds bizarre, I'm sure, but as did your question.

Again, this is going off-topic. We have repeatedly made clear the criteria required for a good encyclopædia article, and if you are unable to understand that then we shall not dignify you with further responses. Goodnight. EuroSong ^talk 22:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Eurosong, but I take issue with your logic. Here in Germany, for example, Wogan's commentary is often mentioned in media reports, even though it isn't broadcast here. He's been doing it for a very long time and has influenced the tone of other commentators, such as Germany's Peter Urban, who also makes snide-ish remarks (sometimes). Wogan, and any other veteran commentators in other EBU countries, certainly deserves a brief mention. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 00:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, ProhibitOnions. Would you please provide references for the above statements? Thanks, EuroSong ^talk 09:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Godsake! Why can't you just content yourself with writting sbout that Wogan on the article about the UK in the eurovision song contest? You do know there is a page like that, don't you? Plus, the UK isn't the only english-speaking country in the world, and most non-britons (with very, very few exceptions) don´t know who wogan is. I myself only heard about him when I moved to the uk!! I love my country's commentator, but it isn't because of that that I'm gonna write about him. Write about wogan on the page about the Uk on the eurovision song contest!!

I actually agree that Wogan is a part of Eurovision worthy of note- his acerbic commentary has been noted by many other participating countries and the ruling body as being overtly rude/unkind, to the extent that there was talk of him being asked not to do it any more (indeed, in his commentary this year he was especially bitter and made it clear he had no desire to continue to be involved with the contest)- He has an international relevance if only because the rest of the countries who take part are bitter that he doesn't take it seriously. 80.7.76.152 (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Slydevil has removed a paragraph in the article's lead - see diff. I disagree with this removal. The reason given was "it makes some very strong claims without any sort of references, it's informal, doesn't do the rest of the article justice". My response is:

This paragraph was present when the article passed Featured Article status, and no-one said there was anything wrong with it. Regarding references, not every single sentence needs a citation - and the rest of the article speaks for the truth of the paragraph. I would say that the fact that it's one of the most watched non-sporting events in the world (a referenced statement), and the list of participants, quite nicely back up the fact that it's currently a contest of "mammoth proportions" - and the section on national selections shows just what a household name it is.

Does anyone have anything to add to this, before I re-include it? I will wait to leave time for comments. Thanks. EuroSong ^talk 00:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, of course the fact that it was there when it went FA, means very little, articles can always been improved. You say yourself that, "the rest of the article speaks for the truth of the paragraph". So if the facts are already there, why is the paragraph needed? It is informal, doesn't add anything, it's really only there to glorify the event. Slydevil 01:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It is in the lead area, and the leads should serve as a "summary" of the article. When it's properly attributed in the article body itself, it should serve adequately. --293.xx.xxx.xx 07:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If the deleted paragraph served as an adequate summary of the article, it should be restored. It doesn't need references as long as the points mentioned in the lead are referenced later in the article. =Axlq 15:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What facts is this: "the word "Eurovision" is one of the few household names to be recognised across an entire continent." exactly summarising? It's an assumption, not encyclopedic matierial. The paragraph merely sensationalises whats already been stated in the previous paragraphs. It doesn't contribute anything useful, at all. Slydevil 23:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

agreed, it's just propaganda-y —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.76.152 (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The (most recent) map was deleted, because it was unreferenced (and looked like someone just made it up). Whichever referenced (not original research) map eventually is put up, hopefully it also makes a distinction between the "two-way" (and multi-way) alliances (incl., e.g., Cyprus<->Greece, Belarus<->Russia, Romania<->Moldova, to name the most "obvious" ones), and the "one-way" alliances, (e.g., Germany->Turkey, Estonia->Russia, i.e., cases where a large immigrant community regularly vote for their country of historical origin, from where there is no significant regular "voting in return"). --Klamber 14:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The entire ESC has to be broadcast live in national TVs and viewers vote in the same 15 minutes, I know. But in Armenia the broadcast begins at 00:00am and ends at 03:00am (or 01:00 to 04:00?). So, is there the Eurovision Song Contest so popular? If yes, how can it be so popular? I think this issue is very interesting. User:Skafa/Sign 14:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the Wikipedia article on the Eurovision Song Contest. It is not for general questions about the Contest. I suggest you ask your question here. Thanks, EuroSong ^talk 15:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Eurovision related wiki site has launched. you can connect on this site at www.eurovision-wiki.com

Can we add it on external links section?--88.226.57.215 22:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the map on "Voting Alliances". The image was removed by

22:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the image again. I do not know who or what

not for original research, and such an image is clearly original research. In order for it to have a legitimate place in this article, the "voting alliances" as shown would have to have been published as fact (not just speculation!) in an independently verifiable publication. I'm sorry, but that image can't stay. EuroSong ^talk

22:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If you feel so, it is OK with me. The edit summary about the missing lines on Saaremaa just did not sound very convincing. -- Petri Krohn 22:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

True.. that reason alone would not have been a good enough reason to remove the image from the article (in that case, the image should just be improved!). But no.. the real reason is WIkipedia's No Original Research policy. Thanks for understanding :) EuroSong ^talk 22:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the sources for the image. This seems to be based on some simple mathematical analysis of the votes. I am sure this is published someplase. Too bad the original uploader does not seem to be around to defend his image, and reveal his sources. -- Petri Krohn 23:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Eyyy!!! in eed, this map is based according the votes since "the semi·final method"(SF) , so far: since 2004 with the tables of points... but is so obviously this year... :( :(, That is so longr that songs ... eg, Bulgarian song passed the SF and do not `ll passed.... 88.19.26.251 16:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

They're members of the EBU, aren't they eligible? Shouldn't they be shown as so on the map?

Yes, they should. Unfortunately though I can't find a good map which includes them! Can you make one? EuroSong ^talk 08:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I made one, a half year ago: you can see Egypt, Jordan, Libya... but not Azebaijan. But I can make a new one.--82.212.57.246 13:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Due to the fact that the songs are playing to such a diverse international audience with diverse musical tastes, and that countries want to be able to appeal to as many people as possible to gain votes, the majority of the songs historically have been middle-of-the-road pop.

Are English lyrics (from non English speaking countries) common for songs that do well? If so that should be included in this sentence. --

11:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the idea of some über-smart who divided languages of former Yugoslav entries into current divisions, by what I must presume is a geographic criterion. There were no "Croatian", "Bosnian" and "Serbian" languages before 1990. I really believe that we must stick to the official language of the songs here, and of course during ex-Yu there was only the common language (Serbo-Croatian, with a couple of songs in Slovene language, which was a separate story all the time). Otherwise we are engaging in original research. Just because somebody was from republic X does not mean they sang in X-ian language. Going into analyzing the words of the songs to figure our whether they were "really X-ian", "actually Y-ian", or whatever (which - mind you - some people actually do), is a road straight into WP:OR. Once again I believe we must revert all of these to their original official language, Serbo-Croatian, and stick to this. Could somebody else perhaps comment before I make large-scale corrections (this must be done for basically every year 1961-1992). --Dzordzm (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused. To which article(s) are you referring? In this article there is nothing about the Yugoslavian languages. EuroSong ^talk 20:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to separate articles for each yearly edition of the contest. This seemed like the most appropriate place to ask (rather than on like 35 different talk pages...) --Dzordzm (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Well the best place would therefore be WikiProject Eurovision. This talk page here is for discussing the main Eurovision Song Contest article. Thanks. EuroSong ^talk 16:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It has been confirmed by the EBU and at esctoday.com that Azerbaijan and San Marino are to participate in the 2008 contest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonbonjela (talk • contribs) 11:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I draw your attention to the note contained within the page source. For convenience I shall copy it here:

Note: Do NOT add Azerbaijan or San Marino until they have actually participated in the Contest.
Even though they may be officially-confirmed participants, we can NOT say that they have actually "made their debut" until they have performed on the stage on the night of the Contest. This is a list of actual debut entries: not just "intentions to participate". It has happened before that a country has confirmed its intention to participate - and gone so far as to select a song(!) - but then withdrawn at the last moment. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (read the rules), and we can not predict the future. These countries should only be added to the list after they have performed live on stage on the night of the Contest.

Please take note. EuroSong ^talk 18:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

O.K. - Citius Altius Fortius (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Phew! I'm glad that's finally over - and we can stop reverting the additions :) EuroSong ^talk 20:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the prize for best song was awarded to the composer and not the artist performing. Am I right? I think this issue needs to be addressed in the article.--24.85.68.231 (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted an addition to the article which suggested that 97% of the Contest's funding comes from the Big Four, and 60% from the BBC alone. This is clearly untrue; certainly searching has brought no evidence whatsoever. Chwech 15:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. That was total bollocks. Thank you for your keen eye, Chwech! EuroSong ^talk 17:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It didn't seem that clear to a non professional at the job (me!) but I was highly sceptical, hence my citation requests. Glad someone was able to verify it was untrue. Thanks! ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The EBU has confirmed that Scotland could submit an entry separate from the rest of the UK. Whether this means that the UK could in future be represented by the 4 home nations remains to be seen, but I have added the issue of Scotland's possible participation to the article. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful contribution, which you made in good faith. Unfortunately however, this is an encyclopædia article and not a Eurovision news page. There are many newsworthy points about the Contest and its future participants - which have good reliable references. However, the inclusion of news of the possible participation of one country is not in keeping with the static nature of a good encyclopædia article. We may as well include all the other little news snippets, which could - or could not - some day affect the Contest. Where do we draw the line? At the moment, the participants' list does not include Azerbaijan or San Marino (despite many people's attempts to add them!) because they have not actually participated. Their confirmed participation in the 2008 Contest is surely more article-worthy than the speculation about Scotland.. yet it is not mentioned. I hope that you will understand, and not take offence that I am now removing your edit. Please do not take it the wrong way: as I said, I understand that you made a good and genuine contribution. Thank you anyway. EuroSong ^talk 20:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem - it appeared to me that the decision to allow Scotland to participate in its own right (even if the permission is not acted on) is a highly significant development. Azerbaijan is an internationally recognised sovereign state, but Scotland is not. In addition, with the UK being one of the Big Four, I thought it would be quite significant if it were to divide. But so be it. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No offense intended, but this map is quite bad and violated

) 01:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The map date is 2008. Azerbaijan and (the now yellow) San Marino are yellow is quite correct. The countries are not in the table and not green on the map as they have not participated in any of the semi-finals or Final in the Eurovision. Kosovo is now shaded rather than an actual country as this is on Wikimedia Commons and is used on other language Wikipedias, which may not have recognised Kosovo's independence, this reflects the

AxG ^{@ ►talk}

09:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a great improvement. One final point on Kosovo is that it probably should be shaded in green and grey, not yellow. At present, there is no EBU member from Kosovo [3] so it is not even eligible to participate this year and, as no they won't be broadcasting this year, Kosovo won't be able to enter in 2009 either. I suggest shading Kosovo in green and grey and then I'm happy with the map :) JdeJ (talk) 09:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is now in grey and green as you said. So every one is now happy :) --

AxG ^{@ ►talk}

10:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Political Voting

In this section i have provided a Youtube clip, which is officially provided by the BBC on the BBC's official Youtube channel whereby 2007 UK entrants Scooch blame political voting for poor performanc at Eurovision.

Someone removed this so i edited it and retyped it.

Would appreciate someone tidying it up a bit (i am not paid to do this). However I feel documented evidence from a reliable source (the BBC's official Youtube channel) is relevant to this.

This is because while often those not affected may blame politics here is eveidence of a PARTICIPANT blaming it.

As this is on the BBC's official Youtube channel it is not a copyright violation and is online verifiable from a reliable source (the BBC's official Youtube channel) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chulcoop (talk • contribs) 23:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

in my inbox it says: The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: 'youtube\.com' (link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpFZB9hecuU) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image or a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to.

The link I provided on Youtube is for the BBC's official channel. It is NOT an irrelevant link. The BBC is the UK state television broadcaster. The clip was on the BBC's official Youtube channel. The BBC made the clip available on Youtube. I feel therefore there is a problem with wikipedia itself.

I feel my contributions (chulcoop) were releveant and would like a WikiExpert to look into this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.211.196 (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This refers to The version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest&oldid=204120654

I did not believe that the "references" need to Online Verifiable.

As far as i understood the references could be for any medium. The evidence is available on Youtube but i am not allowed to do that for wiki.

Surely, for example, the actual broadcasts and any recordings of this are reference themselves.

Printed articles can be refereneced on wiki even if not online verifiable.

Anyway as further backup here is the 2008 entries from the official eurovision site as backup:

http://www.eurovision.tv/page/participants-2008

The videos are contained on there

Video clips for most of 2007 as backup can be found at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/eurovision/2007/contestants/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.211.196 (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Chulcoop, I have replied on your talk page. EuroSong ^talk 14:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The most important result of a contest is the winner. Who are they ? Nobody knows them, at least nobody from the team who wrote this article. In such an article a complete list of all winners and the votes they received would be mandatory.

Instead, I can see absolutely irrelevant results from an obscure TV show from Germany (probably the authors are Germans) showing votes from a small fraction of Europe's population, and nothing about the true winners.

My suggestion is just to delete this garbage. Can anybody write a serious article about the Eurovision Song Contest ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srelu (talk • contribs) 10:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Why delete what I see is not garbage, the article is featured which means that it's a high level of information, sources and readability. The Winners are in the article, but is short and there is a link to the sub page, as this would make the article longer. --

axg ⁞⁞ ^talk

10:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that following my intervention, at least a link to the winners was added to the article. As about the article, I don't think it contains "high level of information". I would say it contains "lots of data" if you can see the difference. Like is that TV show from Germany, supposed by the authors to reflect the opinions of the whole Europe. Really ?

Another worthless information is the divagation about political voting. When voting, people consider many criterias some related to music, some not. It's everybody's right to vote as they wish. Its pointless WHY they vote in a certain way, what is important WHO they vote. Because recently the number of the countries expanded seriously, an alliance between several countries is too little in the global math. It simply doesn't matter. Such alliances cannot have a serious impact, they cannot push a worthless contestant to win if the other countries vote for somebody else.

By the way, the map of the political voting present here in the discussion page is a nonsense. The person who made it shows a total lack of knowledge of the history.

Hungary was once a big empire, now it's shrinked to a small country. All of their neghbours took away territories from them. Because of that reason they don't like any of them excepting Austria.

The republics of the former Yugoslavia, a few years ago killed each others going as far as ethnic cleansing. In the opinion of the author of the map, now they are in love with each other.

Romania and Bulgaria do not love each other, last "warm" relation between the two countries was the Romanian military invasion of the Cadrilater at the begining of the 20-th century. (Bulgaria attacked Yugoslavia. Romania answered by attacking Bugaria because of a military aliance between Romania and Yugoslavia. The unexpected attack from Romania forced Bulgaria to ask for peace. More realistic would be an alliance between Romania and Serbia, but no such thing is displayed on the map.)

I suppose the grey colored parts of the map (the west side of the map) are the "honest" countries, among them, obviously is Germany. How about the votes casted for Turkey due to the large Turkish origin population in Germany ? (Admit it, the authors are Germans.) And how about the French speaking countries ?

Just to mention a few issues... there are much more. But as I said earlier, political voting is irrelevant and without any serious impact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srelu (talk • contribs) 06:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And another issue. Who is the best of all times? That's a nonsense, you cannot compare an artist from the sixties to one from 2007. There were different genres. The taste of the voters changed in time, the music evolved. You ask peolple having the musical tastes of the 2007 to vote for somebody from 1960. Obviously they will not appreciate it. Another point is that people tend to like the music they know. Nowadays you can listen on the radio/TV the winners from the latest years. They are the only known by most of the public so they will receive the most votes.

But if you want to talk about the best I would say you cannot skip Gigliola Cinquetti the winner from 1964. She got 49 points, the second placed got 17. That's about one third of the winner's points. Nobody ever won the contest with such a crushing difference. What's her problem? She's not German ? But you mention the German Nicole several times. I don't deny she deserved to win but there's nothing outstanding about her among the other winners.

BTW, the winners' page it's just a plain list, nothing about the other contestants, nothing about who voted for who and how many points they received from each country. I can recall, I saw one or two years ago on Wikipedia a fully documented article about that, but the authors of this article simply removed it. First, they destroyed valuable information. Second, they showed a blatant disrespect for the work of other people. What if next year your article will be removed as well ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srelu (talk • contribs) 06:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am confused. What is your point exactly? I don't understand what you're trying to say. Please sum it up in a couple of clear, concise sentences. What is your criticism of this article? How can it be improved? What do you suggest we do? EuroSong ^talk 10:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Briefly, my point is that you should focus the article on the song contest. You talk about everything but the contest itself. Well, there's a little exageration, there is valuable info in the article, but you miss the essential: the contest itself. The complete list of the contestants, what voting system was, how many points received every contestant, who gave those points to who, what was the song's title, who composed it.

Let's say that I consider your info about political voting interresting and I want to see who voted for who. Can I ?

Let's say I'm from a country from where no contestant ever won. In this case I'm primarily interrested to see not the winners but the results of the other contestants. Can I ?

But even if I'm not from such a country I still want to see all the results. I know the work of many musicians and I want to see how they were appreciated, regardless if they won or not.

Indeed the article is very long, but that's because of too much irrelevant info. Remove it and talk about the contest itself not TV shows broadcasted in only one European country.

Sorry, maybe I'm a little too harsh, but I'm frustrated knowing there was an article containing all kinds of info I was interrested in it and now it's gone. I came to find some info I knew it was here but I was forced to leave without. Should I be pleased ?

I think at this time the world's most important source for encyclopedic information is this site. I do not intend to beg you to do a good job. You MUST do it. It's an OBLIGATION, not a privilege. Millions, maybe billions of people watch you. Respect them and respect yourself. I never tried to edit the page, because I'm aware I cannot do a world class level work. If you can, then do it. If you can't, follow my example and let others.

"talk about the contest itself not TV shows broadcasted in only one European country."

What do you mean? What country? I am from England.. the Contest is broadcast in other counries than mine!

And as to your other request for information: this can be found in all the subsidiary pages. See, for example, Eurovision Song Contest 2007. This has a complete list of all the song titles and information. It is similar for all other years. There is also a lot of information on specific countries. See for example Turkey in the Eurovision Song Contest. I can only guess that you missed the links to these other articles, and thought that this main article was the only one concerning Eurovision on Wikipedia! Hehe. As you can see, there is far too much information about the Contest to fit into just one article: that's why we have separate pages for all the individual years and countries. This main article, however, deals with the Contest in general, without giving too much specific detail. I hope you are satisfied now. EuroSong ^talk 09:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody know if or when Kosovo is entering the eurovision song contest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamml13 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There are two problems. Firstly, Kosovo has NOT been recognised as an independant state by the international community. Secondly, there is no established television broadcasting company which is based in such a sovereign state - so there is no-one there to become an EBU member. EuroSong ^talk 15:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Kosovo has a public broadcaster established with the help of EBU back in 1999. RTK is Kosovo's public broadcaster and shows Eurosong every year, they even send a special team to the city where the contest is held. Right now Kosovo is a monitoring member of EBU, can use all the programmes but is not a full member because until 17 February, Kosovo had an undefined political status. --

talk

) 07:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

On the EBU's website, you can see that there is no Kosovan broadcaster listed under Active Members or Associate Members. EuroSong ^talk 09:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What about a Serbian television company? They must have an EU membership Adamml13 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well - for a start it's EBU [European Broadcasting Union] not EU [European Union] - but apart from that as Serbia has not recognised the independence of Kosovo its very doubtful any broadcaster from Serbia would take on Eurovision for the statelet, because relations are not very favourable right now.

I would imagine the earliest Kosovo could enter would be 2010, that is assuming a Kosovan company joined the EBU sometime over the next year and broadcast the contest in 2009. This may not even be contingent upon recognition of independence, as it has been said previously (I'll add this myself - ^{[citation needed]}) that Scotland could possibly enter the contest despite being a part of the UK. --Neo (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an anonymous editor who is making a good-faith edit, trying to change "Ireland" into "Republic of Ireland" - stating that this has to be the case to distinguish it from Northern Ireland. I am replying to him/her here, since s/he is an anonymous editor and therefore has no reliable user talk page. Please take note that it is not necessary to use the full name of the country unless there is actually clear confusion. No-one is going to read about Ireland having won the Contest 7 times, and assume that it is Northern Ireland! It would not make sense anyhow: Northern Ireland is a part of the UK, and we would not talk about it having won the Contest on its own - even if all the British winners had been from NI! Also, no-one refers to NI as just "Ireland". If people want to talk about NI, they always include the "Northern" prefix.

We also talk about The United Kingdom in the article: but did you know that there also used to be a United Kingdom of the Netherlands? However, we don't have to use the full name United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (for that is its official name), because there is a convention on Wikipedia which states that common names should be used unless there is a good reason not to. "Ireland" is the country's common name. Besides, in the Eurovision Song Contest itself, the country is known as "Ireland". The EBU call it as such. And to the best of my knowledge, not one single member of any Irish delegation has ever complained, petitioning the EBU to put the words "Republic Of" onto the scoreboard beside their country's name. So - thank you for your good-faith edits, but I hope that you can see that it is not necessary to change the name of the country. EuroSong ^talk 09:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the anonymous editor, however I can see what this editor is trying to do (at least in their most recent edit). They're keeping the word Ireland, but changing the wikilink to Republic of Ireland so the link would then take people to the actual country being referred to. To continue to link Ireland to the article of Ireland will cause confusion as that article doesn't talk about the country, but the island of Ireland as a whole. I'd change it back, it makes more sense. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops - now do I feel sheepish! You're absolutely right, of course: I guess I wasn't quite awake when I saw the edit, and didn't notice that it was only the Wiki-link which was being changed. I guess it was probably also to do with the fact that the out-of-place comment about the Big Four was reverted at the same time. Thank you for pointing this out: I have changed it now. EuroSong ^talk 12:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In the key it states that purple is used for countries that intended to enter but later withdrew. Currently

) 20:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, Tunisia is now purple, if someone disagrees then I can always change it back. -- 

[[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]]

20:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reliable reference for this information? I never actually knew about this. If this is true, it could be included as information in the article: but for that, we need a reliable reference. EuroSong ^talk 08:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Aha - found one! It doesn't explain why they withdrew though. EuroSong ^talk 08:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if there are any regulations about using profanity and obscene language in ESC ? Obviously not, because 2008 Estonian entry "Leto svet" used Finnish obscene word pano (sexual intercourse) on stage. Was that the first time a four letter word was used on Eurovision ? Warbola (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have it on good authority (I asked a Finnish person!) that "pano" is not offensive. Rude yes, but not offensive. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As a Finn, I'd question the intentionalness of said expletive. This isn't the first time I've heard of it, but given the phonetic differences between the two languages, the singers might have mispronounced it. I can't stand listening to the song, so I won't try to figure out what they are saying, tho :-P --Agamemnon2 (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The song actually makes no sense whatsoever regardless of the language (I think there's some German in it somewhere) and "pano" isn't part of the lyrics. One would assume they used the word spontaneously or when they weren't actually performing the song. I think I'd need further clarification from Warbola as I'm not particularly inclined to watch it again either. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt whatsover they sang clearly kesäpanot nyt (There are summer f-cks now) on stage and that it was intentional. Singer Leinatamm has confirmed in interview [[4]] that he used that word intentionally. Many Estonians know what Finnish word pano means as it is used in the same meaning in Estonian slang (as are many Finnish words). Warbola (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is not Kosovo a part of Serbia in one of the maps? By this standard you should not have Baskia as a part of Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.63.212.10 (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with geopolitical disputes is that you can't avoid taking a stand. In this case, Kosovo is separated from Serbia because unlike the Basques, they have issued a declaration of independence which has been accepted by several nations. Marking them on the map as a part of Serbia would be taking a stand against that declaration just as much as marking them as independent is a pro-declaration stand. Neither option is objectively superior to the other, and wherever it is feasible, the position that Kosovo's independence is an open question should be stated openly, as it's unlikely that the controversy will be resolved within the foreseeable future, if ever. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Would people please stop adding the winners table to this article. There is an entirely separate article which lists all the winners. It is not necessary to give ALL the winners in this main article. As per the Wikipedia rules, Wikipedia is not just a random collection of information. This article is structured properly, and flows well. We may as well have a complete list of all entries, and all the voting in the history of the Contest! No... there are separate articles for all the little details. The main article is not the right place for this table. If anyone disagrees then they are welcome to reply here with their reasons - but please stop edit-warring over the matter. EuroSong ^talk 16:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have re-added the radio comment in the ORIGIN section with a link from the official Eurovision site to back up the sentence.

) 17:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. It was not done in the correct format. I will fix this tomorrow when I am more awake :) EuroSong ^talk 23:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's an interesting piece of information, and am glad you think so too. I have just noticed the article is now semi-protected, so could someone please re-add this segment to the ORIGIN section please? With the right format, seems I did it wrong before, sorry. Here is the text...

"The 1956 Eurovision Song Contest was primarily a radio show, although some cameras were taping the contest for the few Europeans who had a television set at that time."

And this is the link... http://www.eurovision.tv/index/main?page=66&event=273

Many thanks.

) 14:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Terry Wogan made some interesting comments at the end of tonight's contest - he said that the UK and Western Europe should think about whether or not they want to bother competing anymore, because the perceived political voting had got so bad. I added it and tagged it "citation needed" - I'll try to add one when it makes it's way into something I can cite (technically it might count as original resource until then...?).Señor Service (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional - I think someone is taking it out again. It's relevant stuff, and for people in the UK, Terry Wogan is *the* voice of Eurovision - so it's noteworthy too. Think it should go back in.

"Most recently, during UK coverage of the 2008 competition, Terry Wogan commented on the tendency of former Soviet Republics to vote for one another, and even suggested that the UK and Western Europe should consider whether it was worth competing anymore.^{[citation needed]}"Señor Service (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you do need a source and it'd probably be best to wait until the vandalism dies down before adding it. Sifting out the good faith from the bad faith edits is very difficult. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't realise there'd been vandalism. I'll restore it when I've got a reference if no one objects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Señor Service (talk • contribs) 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not UK's Terry Wogan alone who critizises these voting pattern. Long year German TV announcer Peter Urban does the same, referring to "Balcan Connection" and "Eastern Block Connection". So it is not a UK aspect to the contest, but a generell aspect that should be in the article. The turkish song will get 10 or 12 points from Germany even if their singer leaves the stage in a hurry to take a piss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ ([[User talk:|talk]]) 22:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It should certainly be added as soon as possible. Wogan sounded extremely disillusioned at the end of tonight's contest, and given how his views tend to pretty much hit the nail on the head for the rest of the UK with regards to Eurovision, it certainly raises some interesting points over Britain's future with the contest, certainly. The Times recently had an interesting article about the politicised voting as well, if I can find it again. I'd say that most British people are certainly getting rather cynical about the contest, and on a rather unencyclopaedic note I'd be very surprised if the UK is still competing (or at least bankrolling the thing) in about two or three years' time. 82.19.11.242 (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an international article and no special weight should be given to the words of a commentator from one country. If Wogan's thoughts or actions actually go on to have an effect upon the Contest - whether by rule changes, or mass withdrawals of Western countries which are verified as the direct result of Wogan's opinions - then that would be fair enough. But until then.. there are MANY people who complain about the political aspect of the Contest, and to single out just one man would be to give undue weight to his opinions, when they are not necessarily correct. There are many people who disagree with him. EuroSong ^talk 23:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Luxemburg, Italy and in 2008 also Austria do not participate to this because of political voting. The Swiss newspapers also want their country not to take part in this scam anymore. Won't be long before either Germany - their "Terry Wogan" does lots of criticism during the voting broadcast too - or UK will quit. If Balcans and Russians want their song contest, they should fund it themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.5.116.129 (talk) 07:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have just made a large re-organisation of this section, integrating some of the comments above, and hoping that the result is consensual. There remains intense activity on the page... with reverts to early versions of the section or the whole article, given last night's event. cckkab (talk) 08:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing is the article now talks about the opinions of two countries commentators. Even if commentators opinions in general were notable in this context (commentators by design need to suffer from some sort of verbal diarrhoea so they can literally talk about anything just to fill time) there are 43 countries who participated in the 2008 contest, what do the remaining 41+ commentators have to say? If notable, they all should be included to give a neutural point of view to the reader of this article. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think neutrality requires us to exhaustively list what every single commentator thinks - just to outline the main schools of thought and cite examples. I would argue that Terry Wogan is a good, notable example of the block-voting-ruins-it school of thought because he has been a Eurovision commentator for 35 straight years. I agree that another, non-English-speaking example might be good for balance, but don't think we need to go crazy. If we decide to only give one example of a proponent than Terry Wogan is probably a good one to go for.Señor Service (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to see some rationality here, though. I think too much space is given already to the silly conspiracy theory about "political voting". The voting patterns are not in themselves proof of this theory, but it is given a free run. Only token acknowledgement is made of the influence of shared culture, language and media, and no mention of the very significant effect of allowing established artists to enter the competition. Politics has nothing to do with it, so why is so much space devoted to this in the article as if it was a fact? 59.167.63.237 (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)KD

wuu:欧罗维竞唱歌比赛 it is the 4th Asian language page. Thx !!

Lulu was famous before being in this competition (if her first entry was in 1969 when she joint-won.) I would have deleted her from the list of people who came to attention in Eurovision but it's looked for anons. --81.178.96.15 (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we expand on the funding situation (especially "the big four") on actual costs involved —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.101.190 (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we mention that there was some controversy about Cliff Richard losing out on winning because of the alleged bribing of the judges by Spain's Franco in 1968? As mentioned here: http://www.nme.com/news/cliff-richard/36423 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.93.184 (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

From 1957 to 1970, only soloists and duos were allowed on stage. From 1963, a chorus of up to three people was permitted.

These two statements directly contradict each other. What are the correct dates? OrangeDog (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for highlighting this. I shall take a look. In addition, I notice that this article has become a mess since this year's Contest. I will clean it up shortly. EuroSong ^talk 20:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

To the people trying to dispute this: In 1992, the country which participated in the Eurovision Song Contest was called Yugoslavia, and it entered under this flag:  Yugoslavia. The song "Ljubim Te Pesmama" was included in the list of performances of Yugoslavia. In the year 2000, no-one talking about the ESC ever stated that S&M debuted in 1992! It is only now in recent times, since Serbia & Montenegro have taken part (since 2004), that nitpickers have tried to say this.

Read the Wikipedia entries on

. The former states that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (consisting of the republics of Serbia and Montenegro, existed from 1992 to 2003. The latter states that Serbia and Montenegro was a union of Serbia and Montenegro, which existed between 2003 and 2006.

Therefore, it can be clearly seen that as political entities, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia existed from 1992-2003 and Serbia and Montenegro existed from 2003-2006. There is no justification for claiming that the Eurovision entry in 1992 was entered under the flag of S&M. It wasn't. S&M didn't exist as a political entity under that name in 1992.

If someone really, really wants to be pedantic then they could remove the 1992 Yugoslavian entry from the list of other entries from Yugoslavia, since it was technically a new political entity between 1991 and 1992. However, this is already addressed in the article, which does state in footnote b: "The entries presented as being from "Yugoslavia" represented the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, except for the 1992 entry, which represented the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." EuroSong ^talk 10:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The Yugoslav entry of 1992 consisted of the same geographical area as Serbia and Montenegro. The 1992 entry of FR Yugoslavia is in the Serbia and Montenegro in ESC article and, although it was not the same political entity, is still the same country, bar a name change. I feel that Serbia and Montenergo debuted in 1992. It wasn't the same Yugoslavia as before and was an entirely different government and geographical area. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, in 1992, Yugoslavia entered under the flag of Serbia and Montenegro (ie ) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"The Yugoslav entry of 1992 consisted of the same geographical area as Serbia and Montenegro" - so what? That doesn't mean it's the same political entity. The "Serbia and Montenegro in ESC" article is wrong, and you can not use this as a reference. Just because "you feel" that S&M debuted in 1992, that doesn't make it correct. Prior to 2004, no-one tried to say that the country which entered the ESC in 1992 was called S&M. If your logic were correct, then "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" in Wikipedia would merely be a redirect to Serbia & Montenegro: the same thing under a different name. But it's not... because they are different political entities. As for the flag, I don't have a copy of ESC 1992 handy so I can't check whether the star appears on the flag or not. EuroSong ^talk 17:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The main article says that Serbia and Montenegro debuted in 2004, but the countries page says that they debuted in 1992. Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.175.67 (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed two of the names from the winners section - Lulu and Carola, since they'd both achieved success long before their wins (it seems in fact that they both had more success BEFORE their wins). While I was at it I added a photo (Bucks Fizz performing at Eurovision) as I felt the article needed a picture of an actual artist performing at the contest, and since it's generally considered that this particular act won more on appearance than performance it seemed the most appropriate (although perhaps Lordi might qualify for that as well). --Tuzapicabit (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you should try to find an uncopyrighted picture, but having one is a good idea. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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?

) 11:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

OK, thank you. That info I believe is not in the page.

talk

) 13:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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.

) 08:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

(talk)

19:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

'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)

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)

--- I was not referring specifically to the music style, but let me say the the most used style is pop, and as everyone knows, pop has roots in America and not in Europe, and the contest is strictly European (I suppose). Despite this simple fact the omnipresence of the English language in the festival is perverting the national languages, as I said 19 of the 25 participants sung in English, which obviously doesn't represent the country culture, and language is a prominent cultural factor. And let me tell you that I have nothing against English language; in Moscow the best song in my opinion was sung by Jade from UK. But each country should be obliged to use their one language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.93.234.32 (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually most European pop music styles comes from the UK pop industry, and not the US. Remember English is spoken in the UK and UK pop music exports are very influential all over Europe. Canterbury Tail talk 13:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you, the mainly exporter of pop music does not reside in the UK but in America, though UK also exports some pop music to other European countries. Despite that, let me ask you: In which way

Lordie representing Finland was the hat of the vocalist. The English omnipresence in this contest (and it's not my opinion so it cannot be considered as violation of NPOV, it is a fact) is perverting the national cultures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.93.234.32 (talk

) 13:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding your own personal unsourced speculative opinion to the article. It constitutes original research and is not accepted on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox. Canterbury Tail talk 14:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not my opinion, and it is not speculative nor unsourced. The English omnipresence in this festival is a clear fact. And any researcher could conclude this simple fact. Why Italy withdrew its participation? Why Spain and France sang in English?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.93.234.32 (talk)

I would agree that the US is the main exporter of music in almost all types. It has one of the biggest music industries and any song released there almost certainly charts in a majority of European countries. I don't see it on the same scale for the UK. Though I feel it may be true, there is no source for it to be added to the article. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

In which way Sakis Rouvas with his "This is our night" represented the Greek culture in Moscow? It is a typical pop music which could be associated as being American and not Greek. ESC is European and not American. I'll try to add an impartial note referring the omnipresence of the English language in the ESC. It's been controversial in some southern European countries.

"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)

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)

Liechtenstein

Liechtenstein is part of the Council of Europe.^[1]
It is not part of the Europan Broadcasting Union (See: Talk: Eurovision Song Contest#Iraq?):
"Active members are those whose states fall within the European Broadcasting Area, or otherwise those who are members of the Council of Europe."
So there (is a/are) (country/countries) within the Council or Europe and Broadcasting Area, but not within the European Broadcasting Union.
The rest of what I have to say concerns the article of the European Broadcasting Union, so I'll talk there.
Also, Tobsonhelsinki stated on Talk: European Broadcasting Union#Liechtenstein in Eurovision:
"It is true that Liechtenstein tried to enter the Eurovision Song Contest once,... it was in 1976..."^[2]
Should Liechtenstein be included in this article? Liechtenstein is eligable to participate as of 15 August 2008^[3], but has not participated in the Eurovision contest yet. (See: European Broadcasting Union#Potential active EBU members)
Should this be included in the map if it is included in the article?

References

[5] The Council of Europe
[6] Eurovision History
[7] 1FLTV

× Prince Naveeen 1000: Unless you beg for more ;) × 03:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Already commented on

WP:Eurovision, but I've requested this article is given semi-protection, in light of recent vandalism. YeshuaDavid (talk

) 13:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed

[8] = Citation is needed here, otherwise this is a violation of

WP:NOR. Cirt (talk

) 09:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This is a true fact, but in accordance with the WP guidelines, you're right - a citation is indeed needed. For the moment this fact should remain commented out, until a reference can be found. EuroSong ^talk 15:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Italy part of the Big 5

To whoever keeps removing the information about Italy being part of a big 5, if the decide to return to the Eurovision, please STOP! It was previously agreed that it should be included in the section - considering the information also came with 100% reliable sourcing. Mr Stockselius exclusively told reported that Italy IS part of a BIG 5 if they should return. I very much doubt the Executive Supervisor of the contest would make up such a thing - even to reporters at an OGAE meeting. (

Pr3st0n (talk

) 19:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC))

While there is no doubt as to whether Svante actually said this, the question is whether or not it is relevant to include this information in the article. Just because it's a true fact, that doesn't mean that it should necessarily be included. There are many other snippets of information relating to the Contest - which have reliable references. However, the fact remains that Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. I understand that you may think it relevant to include the information about Italy being part of a big-5 in the same section as the Big 4 - however, this will only be true IF Italy does return. At the moment, there are no plans for the return of Italy - therefore the information is not relevant.

If Italy had confirmed that they would indeed start entering again, then it would be a relevant point of interest to note that they are going to be part of a Big 5. But they haven't, so it isn't.

It's the same as including information stating that, now Liechtenstein has its own TV station, then if they joined the EBU they would be eligible to participate. You may well find some reference for this - but until there is some actual news that confirms they DO intend to join the EBU for the purposes of entering the Contest, then it remains just another piece of information which does not belong in the main encyclopædia article.

Your information about Italy being part of a possible Big 5 would be much better placed in Italy in the Eurovision Song Contest. Hope you understand. EuroSong ^talk 15:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but you even said yourself above, the information is FACT - and that only FACTS should be included in the article. Erm correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't you contradicted yourself in that statement? OK Italy aren't in the contest; but the related link does show Svante quoted as saying "SHOULD ITALY RETURN THEY ARE PART OF BIG-5". This information should be included in the Eurovision main article, for those who use this page for research can then see that apart from the main BIG 4, there is also a 5th if they were to return. How would any researcher know of this fact if we are to omit it. It was also mentioned

talk

20:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the issue and my third opinion is as follows: I think a brief mention of Italy being part of a potential Big Five is relevant to that section, as it is directly linked to the Big Four. The sourcing seems fine, though try and use {{

talk

11:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Cameron for your third opinion. Much appreciated. Regards, (Gareth aka

Pr3st0n (talk) 11:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC))

EBU website copying us :)

It is amusing to note that the EBU website contains text which has been directly lifted out of this article :) EuroSong ^talk