Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024

Request for comments: controversies in lede

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Although the number of involved editors was low, consensus was generally agreed to include controversies in the lead. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Should this article's lede mention controversies that arose surrounding the song contest? If yes, please explain to what extent, i.e. should it mention that there were controversies in general or should any specific controversies be detailed?

Please note that as a prominent controversy is related to the Israel-Hamas war, it is subject to WP:ARBECR. Accordingly, accounts with fewer than 500 edits and 30 days' tenure may not participate. Any comment violating ARBECR may be removed by any editor, and edit warring will not be tolerated. Please keep the discussion respectful: comment on the matter in question, not on other editors. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The only controversies in the lede should be ones which happened during the contest broadcast such a in 2019 with the Madonna interval act or those affecting who participated. This includes Russia being excluded, Romania not returning and The Netherlands being disqualified.

Inclusion of anything else moves the focus from the contest to events outside and this article needs to remain focused on the contest and broadcast of the contest.

There are sub pages for each entrant country where information pertaining to events related to those countries can be added if encyclopaedic.

The lede of this article must focus on the contest itself and not the actions using the contest as a vehicle, protests and support regarding Israel being a big example of the contest being used as a vehicle to push a political narrative. Those are not what the focus of this article is. Having that information takes a side that this article and Wikipedia as a whole is to happy to be used as a vehicle in the same way. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Summoned by a bot: The current situation -- one sentence about controversy regarding Israel's participation -- seems reasonable. Protests about Israel's participation were widely covered in the press leading up to the contest, there were several instances of other participants referencing the conflict, and quite a bit of discussion following the contest was about how the broadcasters had dealt with the protest. The article's paragraph on the controversy about Israel's participation is well referenced with reliable sources. Referring to this with one sentence in the lead seems proportionate and appropriate. Mgp28 (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with Mgp28. PicturePerfect666's proclaimations about what "must" or "must not" happen aren't grounded in any policy or guidelines. Our readers expect our articles to accurately summarize the available source material that pertains to the subject, and this year's Eurovision has some political baggage that other editions did not. It's not WP's job to dicate that the real world is not allowed to draw the connections it is drawing; it is our job to report them correctly with due weight.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 

It is grounded in precedent from other articles and in the following Wikipedia:Summary style, to try and make a good quality article. It needs to be broad but still focused on the article's subject. Is going into detail about one entrant in relation to things which occurred outside the contest itself really doing that? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "precedent from other articles". Wikipedia is not a legal system built on precedent, and tiny micro-consensuses at one article cannot dictate how other articles are written (cf. WP:CONLEVEL policy). All our actual policies, procedures, and principles apply to all content evenly, and cannot be overridden by personal or WP:FACTION subjective preferences, including what you think is "good quality". Our policies sourcing, neutrality, and OR, and our guidelines on content, determine what is good quality encyclopedic output, and you don't get to change that willy-nilly on a topic-by-topic basis to suit personal whims. Look, we really do get that you personally hate the idea of this article reflecting anything to do with political concerns and controversies that have been raised in the public sphere. But that is just too bad. The source material tells us that this has in fact happened and it has become publicly bound up with the vent in public discourse and perception. There is nothing we can do about that. This is not a project to "re-scoping" public consciousness about events and their perception; it is a project for reflecting the public consciousness accurately. PS: The policy you are looking for is, again, WP:DUEWEIGHT. It is not undue weight to mention this socio-political controversy in the lead and have a concise section about it, since it is overwhelmingly prevalent in RS coverage of the event. It would be undue to WP:COATRACK this article with a great deal of depth on this matter than really belongs in some other article, such as on the particular artist in question.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with Mgp28, it should be mentioned in a sentence or two in the lead to try and sum up what's covered in the body. The controversy had a major effect on the contest and the culture/celebrations around it both in the arena and outside. AlexandraAVX (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Include Per all the discussions preceding this one. Yoyo360 (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I also believe that the controversy has a place in the lede. 2024 ESC has undoubtedly been exceptionally controversial like no other year has ever been, and this is reflected in RS. Considering the amount of controversy that was sparked during the whole ESC season, the current version of the lede (one sentence about the conroversy) seems appropriate, and perhaps even the (bare) minimum; to me at least. Piccco (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the lede should have a mention of the controversies in this year's edition. Currently, the only specific controversies that seem to be worth mention in the lede would be the controversy over Israel's participation and the controversy over the Netherland's disqualification from the final. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for comments: votes received and how by Israel

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus agreed to include coverage of campaigning for votes for Israel within the Controversies section. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Should the "Controversies and incidents" section contain a section on Israel votes and media reports in connection to this which relate to more individuals than expected or individuals which would not usually have voted. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Please note that as a prominent controversy is related to the Israel-Hamas war, it is subject to WP:ARBECR. Accordingly, accounts with fewer than 500 edits and 30 days' tenure may not participate. Any comment violating ARBECR may be removed by any editor, and edit warring will not be tolerated. Please keep the discussion respectful: comment on the matter in question, not on other editors. Thank you. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Include per the already above section Yoyo360 (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Include as it definitely impacted the results. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you prove that with reliable neutral verifiable sources? If not it can't be implied through wikivoice. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Didn't mean to prove it or to have that exact wording in the article, but when there are neutral verifiable sources that many non-Eurovision fans voted, and the fact that every vote counts, it is extremely likely that that was the case. Again, not necessarily saying that should be in the article though Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

How do you or the publications for that matter know they are "non-Eurovision fans"? Additionally wikivoice cannot go on speculation re: "it is extremely likely that that was the case". It feels like journalistic license is being employed and potentially so crystal ball activities. It also feels like original though from the publications to come to the conclusions that they have. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The sources are reliable and citing officials from the israeli government. All confirm without a doubt that a campaign for votes happened. This is not subjective. This is factual. The matter at hand here is to decide whether to mention this campaign in the article and a former discussion has already been made. Yoyo360 (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no way to know "All confirm without a doubt that a campaign for votes happened. This is not subjective. This is factual" That all falls under WP:Original Research as it has drawn a conclusion from them which is not necessarily one supported widely. It draws the reader to conclude the votes for Israel are some how tainted or that rules were broken. Which a non-neutral POV.

Nowhere is it stated any actual rules were broken, or that mass voting by bots happened or similar. It just seems people in other countries got messages about the Israel entry and decided to exercise a vote this year. It doesn't feel like anything more here, the claims additionally feel extremely tabloid. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Once again, the matter at hand is whether or not israel had a voting campaign. And the answer is undoubtedly yes, the several sources provided in the former section confirm it, citing a government official. The impact on the voting is not the topic of our discussion. Yoyo360 (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The issue I have is a misuse of wikivoice and the non neutral implications of the section. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Once again, as long as we use the sources provided in the former section, the inclusion won't cause a problem as we will just be relaying a fact: Israel campaigned for votes. It is factual. The fact that you see non neutral implications behind this type of sentence is problematic because there is not. And if you think that there's an indirect implication that israel got their points from this campaign, read the sources and ponder one minute... because isn't that what our sources exactly imply already? Including the israeli source ynet. Yoyo360 (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

If all of the RS support there being a campaign to mobilise votes for Israel for political reasons then I don't see how it's an issue to state it in Wikivoice. AlexandraAVX (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is an explanation from a reliable source that it was just turnout, ability to vote multiple times without restrictions, and lots of other options.] Not some nefarious political campaign at the heart of why Israel polled well. Only having Israel is the big bad wolf style article belies the more benign and boring reasons set out in the article above. Also remember how in 2016 Eurovision changed to its current format of voting because it was all neighbours voting for each other. This is a storm in a teacup to claim that people voting en mass and multiple times is new. it also belies that mundane reasons exist as well as the nice sexy claims of the big bad Israel trying to rig the contest.

[1] PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

That RS doesn't say there was no campaign, it explains how low support in numbers for a contestant can still result in a unusually good result for them. If anything the source explains how the voting system and the nature of public votes could enable a campaign.

Second, we have to take into consideration 'motivated reasoning'. "We see this in politics when it comes to turnout in elections and turnout in referendums", explains Cunningham. "When we see turnout in referendums become very low we notice that the results become quite skewed. If turnout in a referendum gets lower than 35% the people who are more motivated, more interested, tend to influence the outcome a little bit more".
AlexandraAVX (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

No source is going to say “there was no campaign” that is like asking for proof of a negative. What it shows is not all RS are singing the same hymn on Israel and there are plenty of other valid reasons for the televote results beyond the claims of what are essentially Israel rigged it. I think there is a potential blinding to stuff outside of the Israel contentiousness when boring and benign reasons also exist. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

If it is to be included the boring and benign reasons need the same weight on the section as the juicy and sensational claims. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thing is, once again, these are not claims. They're facts. Several sources, including some coming directly from Israel, cite an Israeli government official and diplomat who stated the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs campaigned. Some go as far as detailing they shot videos in at least ten languages demanding people to vote and the whole thing getting 14+ million views. Facts. Not claims. Yoyo360 (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Claims of “these are facts” are unhelpful as you don’t know that, no one here does. All anyone knows is what is reported so a better statement is “as reported in [sources]” not “these are facts” the latter implies infallibility of the sources. Additionally alternate reasons in an RS has been presented. Wikivoice cannot only give one side, as it currently seems to claim Israel votes were nefarious as opposed to the boring and benign reasons which are also a possibility for the televote results. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

No one can know 100% and there are no infallible sources, but we still write statements of fact in Wikivoice. We don't keep repeating "According to Charles Darwin, humans evolved from apes" any time we talk about evolution, even if plenty of people pushing WP:FRINGE theories think it will be disproven any day now.

If there's RS reporting that there was a government-sanctioned campaign that didn't actually exist then there would be plenty of reason for other RS to report on how that isn't true or it was uncertain/unclear. If there was a significant disagreement on whether there was or wasn't a government-sanctioned campaign then we should be more careful about using wikivoice. In the absence of any reliable or significant claim that a campaign didn't exist I don't see why we can't state it in wikivoice. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not think that the Irish source from a professor is a fringe theory. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thing is we are talking about a campaign for votes. Which according to numerous sources, definitely happened. Which is worth inclusion. We are not talking about how israel got their results, which would very much indeed necessitate all possibilities to be accounted for. We are talking specifically about whether or not to mention the campaign. Which, once again, did happen according to several sources. No matter its influence, the existence of this campaign has been established. So your Irish Independent reference is irrelevant in this specific context. Yoyo360 (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Include per others and the already-had discussions { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Include, obviously. We've already been over this. This is not a proper RfC. See WP:RFC, in particular WP:RFCBEFORE. RfCs are for getting broader community input to help resolve matters for which no consensus can be determined after extensive "local" discussion. But there is no failure to come to a consensus here. "One editor doesn't like the result" is not a consensus failure, and RfCs are not for "asking the other parent" in hopes of getting an answer one might like better. (Aside: RfCs are also for seeking broad community input, from the start, on a proposal that has site-wide implications, like changing a policy or introducing a new guideline. But that is of course not applicable to a minor discussion like this.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

include, as I have mentioned in older discussion. A confirmed vote campaign with government involvement taking place in a song contest with huge and international cultural impact is an incidence of major importance, and something uncommon for the ESC. Inclusion can be warranted, in my opinion. Piccco (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do not include since his is not new nor unheard of. Participating countries frequently advertise their contest entries, and the reason why it's done more heavily this year has far more to do with the voting window opening early than anything else. Either way, it's not provable without a reasonable doubt, and has no precedent, so should not be included. LivLovisa (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Include. The issue is not that participating countries advertise their contest entries. That's a no-brainer. The issue is that a government is involved with and admitted that there is a campaign by Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs to vote for them. “The truth is that there was obviously an organized, dedicated effort by Israel supporters to give their votes to Golan… and it clearly drew votes from many who don’t otherwise tune into the Eurovision each year.”

WP:ARBPIA –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As provided under the "ESC Title and Values" section of the contest rules, specifically under the "Non-Political Event" subsection, "[all] Participating Broadcasters shall be responsible...to make sure that the ESC shall in no case be politicized and/or instrumentalized and/or otherwise brought into disrepute in any way." As what @Yoyo360 have already mentioned, we are specifically talking about whether or not to mention the campaign, which have already been established (sources here, here, and here). "No matter its influence, the existence of this campaign has been established." F1xesc (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC) To be honest, I think that the amount of promotion for this entry was, indeed, something new and unheard of. At some point, you couldn't watch a Youtube video without an ad popping up. Piccco (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Include per the previous discussion. Also, as SMcCandlish mentioned, I'm still confused about the need to open a RfC when consensus was already pretty clear. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Include: The exact wording to be added hasn't been fully discussed, but it is clear that there is support for including in the earlier discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Include: As others have mentioned there is support for including this Fener8819 (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Restarting archive discussions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The previous discussion is a dumpster fire so let’s clean break start again.

I propose setting the numbers to 1 thread left with a 30 day time frame, living further down the line to 0 threads left with a 60 day time frame.

The reasons for this are as the page quietened the discussions will take longer but will be fewer so will conclude later, they will though conclude.

When a discussion is concluded that should not be left on the page forever getting old and stale while lunch forgotten about and sad. That is just bad. Additionally o see no reason for discussions which concluded to remain as it gives an impression of not finished when even after years they are still there looking unfinished.

Let’s not oeretend that keeping old staleness missions on a talk page is helpful to anyone. Any arguments of but duplicate discussions could happen are applicable under any scenario unless archiving never took place so that is a ridiculous position. Additionally archiving his a tool for cleaning up when things finish. If a discussion has comments less frequently than 30 or 69 days is that really an active discussion?

TL:DR I propose 1 thread left with 30 days archiving moving to zero left with 60 days archiving because old discussions shouldn’t hang around on a talk page forever and a day. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Now I'm going to be slightly vulgar but for god's sake there is already a discussion on that topic right above this one with some positions clearly taken and argued and approved so will you just stop at some point? Yoyo360 (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

That is exactly what this clean break is trying to avoid. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems like you just don't like the consensus above, so hoping to ignore it and try and get people to agree to your preferred version. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• 5 threads/30 days, since you insist on concrete proposals. You seem to not be considering any arguments made by anyone who doesn't exactly agree with you, but I wrote above that some recent threads left out of archive shows editors who come to a page later what things have been discussed recently, so that they don't start new discussions on those same issues. It also limits the load on the archiving bots, which use some server resources every time a page is archived. Furthermore, there's not really any reason to archive old discussions in the first place: ideally we would have one page documenting all discussion that ever occurs on a topic, except that certain topics like this one will get too long. The vast majority of Wikipedia talk pages don't archive at all. 5/30 is a reasonable default (and was the default until very recent changes that I'm still wrapping my head around); leaving just one thread visible seems pointless, and 0 is ridiculous. I also agree that this is likely bound for WP:LAME. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for this I was unaware of the server load arguments. That seems valid. Also as the default has changed why not go to the new default?

  Also never archiving would be extremely challenging to wade through but I see your point regarding searchability.

  I am happy to move to the new defaults on the archive as these have now been explained in a way which makes sense re server load in particular which I think I three threads left at 30 days. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'd suggest keeping 5 threads for now and maybe reduce it some time later. There's not the flurry of activity that immediately followed the contest but it's still a very recent and popular event and a fairly active page. I'd agree with "going with the new default" except I don't know what it is, or even if there is a default now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support 5 threads/30 days. Agree fully that "leaving just one thread visible seems pointless, and 0 is ridiculous". Also fully agree with @Yoyo360's sentiment "for god's sake there is already a discussion on that topic right above this one with some positions clearly taken and argued and approved so will you just stop at some point?". BugGhost🪲👻 19:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• I have filed WP:ANI#PicturePerfect666 bludgeoning at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support 5/30. Very typical for talk pages that are currently getting a lot of use. At some point we can go to the more typical 5/90 used at talk pages that aren't currently becoming difficult to navigate because of so much discussion. Valereee (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support 5 threads/30 days. Consensus was already clear from the previous discussion above, and reopening it so quickly in order to have a "clean break" is highly controversial and is not in any way helpful. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support 5/30 as it was the clear consensus above. Also Oppose any more arbitrary "restarts" to the discussion. Save the mulligans for Sunday morning golf. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support 5/30 per existing consensus. Grk1011 (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support 5/30 which has clear consensus, and didn't need these new section to regather the same consensus... Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support 5/30. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support 5/30 per Valereee. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support 5/30: Per both discussions. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@PicturePerfect666, are you ready to accept this and let it be closed? It's just a time-waster at this point. Valereee (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, PP666 is apparently taking a break. I don't think we need to waste anyone's time requesting formal closure, but anyone who wants to, including someone who !voted, can probably SNOW close this if they prefer. Valereee (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2024

Add the following paragraph to the end of the "Disqualification of the Netherlands from the final" section, they explain challenges from Serbia, Slovenia, Portugal, Croatia, France, Norway, Spain, as well as a subsequent criminal investigation that was dismissed today.

(taken from Netherlands_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024#Incident_and_subsequent_disqualification)

Ivan Simonović, a member of Serbia's delegation, called the disqualification "unfair", while Slovenia's broadcaster RTVSLO demanded clarifications from the EBU. Portugal, Croatia, France, Norway and Spain also demanded explanations from the EBU regarding incidents that occurred during the contest. The Swedish Police Authority launched an investigation into the incident on the day it was reported, and the case was subsequently handed to the Swedish Prosecution Authority. The investigation was closed on 12 August, with the senior prosecutor Fredrik Jönsson citing a lack of evidence to prove that Klein "was capable of causing serious fear or that [he] had any such intention". Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done with minor edits for WP:NPOV — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2024

Please change Ukraine televote in Semi-Final 1 from blank to 5 points to Australia. Aero89012 (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.