Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2009/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Oikotimes???

Is anyone else having problems getting to Oikotimes.com? have they shut down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.137.8 (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes and it is killing me. I don't know when or if they will be back up again. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I also had the same problem the other day but they were back later; hopefully it is just server issues. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you can get on?? Also, proofread the newsletter for me please, I want it out tonight :) Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I could the other day again, but I could not yesterday, and I still cannot get on now. Camaron2 | Chris (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

ITS BACK!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.137.8 (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ireland

What are Ireland doing next year? They aren't mentioned anywhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.40.178 (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It has been added. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Lithuania

Has Lithuania actually withdrawn, or did someone just put it there??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.92.76 (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say that it has withdrawn. It's under "undecided" meaning it is still deciding whether to go or not. That is the most recent news we have. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that when i looked last, it was next to Georgia in the withdrawals section. It has since been fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.92.76 (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine and Macedonia confirmed participants

Despite some tabloid rumours,Macedonian MRT representatives have confirmed that withdrawl from ESC 2009 is not considered.Broadcaster have recently shown Eurovision Dance Contest,and was preparing for Junior Eurovision selection,and a huge Tose Proeski tribute to be broadcasted by the EBU network on the 5h October.

Link: http://esckaz.com/2008/

As result of this im removing the countries mentioned from the withdrawals table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.198.102 (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything about Macedonia or Ukraine in that link and how does any of this have to do with Ukraine? The only mention of it is in this section's header. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

ESCKaz is one of the most reliable sites of the contest. It clearly says: Despite some tabloid rumours, Macedonian MRT representatives have confirmed that withdrawal from ESC 2009 is not considered. Broadcaster has recently shown Eurovision Dance Contest, is preparing to Junior Eurovision selection in September and a huge Tose Proeski tribute to be broadcasted by EBU network on 5th of October. They already are discussing format of national selection for ESC, and it will be certain in the early October. Ukraine has confirmed it's participation as well. Ukrainian broadcaster NTU has said to be currently considering the option for the televised preselection, the most likely option is that it will be similar to 2007 one, the dates are now being discussed. Several high profile artists already expressed their enterest to take part. However, if financing will be limited, broadcaster may still opt for internal selection, but withdrawal is "absolutely impossible". Zaqqq (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree. The site is someones personal website from what I can tell. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make it less reliable then? It's editor has the direct confirmation from the broadcasters, which is no different on how other ESC websites work and the information is trustworthy. Zaqqq (talk) 04:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I will keep on deleting these countries from undecided, unless you prove they are indeed withdrawing. ESCKaz clearly says they are not. Articles, used as source of possible withdrawal, are from less reliable sources, and Ukrainian article doesn't actually mentions possibility of withdrawal at all. Zaqqq (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC) I've also checked two Macedonian souces and and they DO NOT even have word Eurovision in it. The articles not CLEARLY mentioning possible withdrawal, are not considered as sources of it. Making ASSUMPTION that some unclear and unconfirmed changes in broadcaster (like cut of certain stuff etc) will lead to Eurovision withdrawal is WRONG, Wikipedia is not the place for your thoughts and self-research. Zaqqq (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

For starters, WP:3RR applies on this article like any other and it will be enforced, continued blanket reverting is not in compatibility with this policy. There is now nothing in the article regarding Macedonia and Ukraine, are they confirmed participants, undecided, or withdrawing? They can only be one of these, and undecided is not the same as saying they may withdraw. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR applies only to 3 reverts in 24 hours. They should be listed as participation confirmed, as the source clearly says that. Zaqqq (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Not always, see Wikipedia:3RR#Not an entitlement. So if they are confirmed participants, please feel free add them to confirmed participants list with the sources you wish to use. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine, the source is stated in the first post of this discussions, I'll do that now. Zaqqq (talk) 11:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Tabels

Hi, i found in spanish wiki, one table for eurovision, in portuguese wiki, i have alredy out the table in de Eurovision 2008 and 2009. I'm where to ask you, if you don't wanna use this table?

Country	Original Song Name	Artist	Seleccion	Seleccion Date
	English Translation	Languages
United Kingdom	TBD	TBD	Eurovision: Your Decision 2009	TBD
	TBD	TBD

--João P. M. Lima (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably not since it would be a lot of work to update all of the pages. The current table shows enough info for an overview without being too complicated. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Participants sections

Should we move the table, and add in all the confirmed participants, and rename the section "Participating countries" as on the 2008 page? Or is it still too early? Greekboy (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It might make sense. Where did we get the idea to do the national selection stuff in the table by the way? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The national selection info and date is usually included in the table every year until they are over. And then they are taken out and replaced with other fields like points and stuff. It a so-so situation. I believe there is a guideline/rule about adding in info that will be eventually taken out in the final article. I am not sure on the exact name and such. Greekboy (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked through last years discussion archives, and found the rule I was talking about was Wikipedia:Recentism. It was agreed last year that national selection information and dates should be taken out of the article completley, and written on the countries yearly pages. I am going to be be bold here and take out the info, and re-organize things. If anyone has any comments or problems please let me know here. Greekboy (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd support that. Now we can put all confirmed into the table. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I moved most of it over. All that needs to be done now is to write a short paragraph about the withdrawing countries, and new coming countries above the table like in the 2008 article, but that can wait I guess. If anyone wants to do it, please feel free. Greekboy (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am overall quite happy with the move around but I have some disagreements, see below. I have already added more detail about withdrawals, but you can add more if you wish. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with your suggestions, especially about the withdrawals. Like I wrote above, it can be written in a paragraph above the table. I just didn't add more information to it at the time. Since it is now mentioned above the table, I took out the list/sub-section about it, and you seem to agree with that. Regarding the venue section, can I suggest incorporating the visual design of the contest in the future somehow together with the venue information? Just a suggestion. Greekboy (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am quite happy for the venue section to be tinkered around with as necessary in the future, I do think incorporating visual design with it makes sense. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawals and lead section re-visited

First I will quote what I said in September...

I have re-added the withdrawals section again, as I do not agree with its removal. First, the section is not redundant to the infobox - the infobox gives no mention on why Georgia withdrew, which is not very helpful to the reader. Second, although it is happening both in this article and the 2008 article, per WP:LEAD, the lead section should only overview the article, it should not contain exclusive details of information. So I would also oppose moving all details of Georgia's withdrawal to the lead section. A quick mention can be given, but not everything. Yes the withdrawals section is rather short as there is only one withdrawal at the moment, but more can be added in the future and this article is not currently suffering from length problems. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I have re-written the lead to be more compliant with WP:LEAD. The original lead was functioning more like a miscellaneous section and had to much detail of certain topics such as the host (I have now given this its own section) and no mention of some other topics such as participants. The lead is quite short now at only a mid size paragraph, though that this is probably quite close to what it should be at the current article size. As the article gets longer, the lead can get bigger. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The first bit about withdrawals still applies now, the reasons for withdrawal are historical information but I have now integrated them into the participants section so there is no need for the withdrawals section. The lead part still applies as well, it is a summary not the miscellaneous section to put stuff that does that does not fit into any other section. It should be aimed for this article to comply with guidelines such as WP:LEAD, merging sections with it does not do that. I am aware that in previous years venue information was in the lead and dominated it, this is to be frank wrong, and I would rather adopt correct practices now rather than later. The lead section is a little short now, but this can be resolved in ways other than merging sections. I hope to correct ESC 2008 eventually to solve this issue there as well. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Usually there are no refs in the lead. Do we have them because that information is not discussed in detail below? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It should in theory be possible to not use citations in the lead as the content there should be mostly drawn from the rest of the article, which should already be cited. The guideline says on the issue: Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. ... The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality. I am under the impression this means that articles can have either most references repeated in the lead, or have few or none there, with the topic type and editors consensus determining which way to go. In this case I do not really mind if the citations are there or not. Browsing round featured articles there seems to be a mix, Trafford hardly has any citations in the lead, while Subarachnoid hemorrhage has quite a few. For Eurovision they should not be particularly necessary, citations in the main article body are usually sufficient. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of ESCKaz

As it relates to all Eurovision articles, this discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision.

Hadise.... Türkiye..... Turkey.....Eurovision 2009

http://bp0.blogger.com/_OG62oIrnrsA/SFOk3pgVu6I/AAAAAAAAEQU/5Wij5t2VC04/s400/20080613_160237_859_HADISE%2520-KAPAK.jpg

She will participate ın 2009 Eurovision Song Contest for Türkiye(Turkey).I think.this is %99,9999999...She has got beatiful and strong voice and song.and She is Turkish of course...go Hadise go Turkey.Türkiye... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.227.209.254 (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

As much as we would like to take your word for it, let's wait until it is published somewhere. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

but last week Hadise talked about thıs ın a Turkish television. she would lıke to go eurovisiion 2009.and if she will be able to participate Eurovision 2009,she will be very glad.so ıf TRT(Turkish Rodio Television)is stupid,they won't send Hadise.but ıt is imposible.she wiil participate.ok?and you will see this soon.

It won't hurt to wait a little bit. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

look my friend?are you English?ı dont understand you,ok? ı will wait,anyway I'm thinking to go Hadise in Eurovision.because TRT explained 2 days ago.and they made definite.thay chose Şebnem Ferah or Hadise.but Şebnem Ferah wouldn't go Eurovision.so Hadise absolutely will go.Do you understand?No matter what, Hadise has started dreaming about the Eurovision Song Contest 2009. "If I would take part – I am a perfectionist – then the performance should be incredibly. Besides that, the song would have to be extremely good. So we'd have to spend a lot of time on it". said Hadise.She is belgıum sınger but She is Turkish and at the same tıme she feel as a Turkish singer.thıs ıs true.she has got not only Englısh song but also Turkish song.look at 'hadi deli oğlan' that hadise's song.ıt ıs Turkısh language.ok?of course she wıll represent for Türkiye.Turkey.she said —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.227.206.212 (talk) 07:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.252.207.174 (talk)

That website is a blog which means that you can't use it on wikipedia. We need a source from the TRT website or a newspaper, etc. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

why? I'm writing my interpretation now.thıs ısn't wrong.only thıs ıs comment.ok?this is only discussion.do u understand me?

Yes...but i can't do anything with it. It was not officially announced yet. There are no sources besides what some people think. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

http://news.google.com.tr/news?hl=tr&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:tr:official&hs=4eq&q=trt+hadise&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=title thıs ıs a source but ıt ıs turkısh language do you speak turkısh.but ı know you dont know.what a shame!from TRT.ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.252.207.174 (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say this she IS going, just that she wants to so theres a big difference. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand you stephen.where are you from?fron england.ı dont understand your englısh please you can wrıte thıs clearly . are you geeek? ohhhh ı understood.plase talk clearly. Παρακαλώ Ναι look ı speak greek language.but some.ı know some word ı learn thıs word now .ç.:)

I am from America. We need to wait for TRT to say Hadise IS going to Eurovision, not wants to. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Turkish user, we appreciate the contribution, however, as experience shows during the past three years no less that 25 singers have been "definitely confirmed" to represent Turkey, either by Turkish sites or other unreliable fan-sites. Thus, the best is to wait for official announcement on TRT website. There is no harm if this information will appear few hours later if really confirmed. Zaqqq (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

ok? you won.but thıs ımformatıon ıs no harm. you said.thıs ıs only dıscussıon.ıf hadise go eurovision 2009.you have to publish the contribution.ok?but after you clear thıs comment,how you publish thıs ımformatıon agaın?ıf wıkıpedıa ıs free.and( my name is Özgür.ıt means free freedom ın english.)I wıll get angry you.thıs ımformatıon must publısh.ok TRT wıll explaın thıs event soon.and you see thıs hadıse wıll go.ok my friend?bye.ıf you are enemy,Im enemy too,but ıf you are friend,Im friend too.ok?my friend?ı love you.good bye...:

When TRT officially announce Hadise as the singer, we will add it to wikipedia. They have not done that officially yet. Greekboy (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=xsDFtH5OQjs watch now.this is great! LOOK HADİSE İS ENTERİNG EUROVISION 2009.GRK1011/STEPHEN.HADİSE GO TÜRKİYE GO.2010 İS TÜRKİYE ANKARA 2010 EUROVISION SONG CONTEST.THIS IS GREAT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.227.193.3 (talk) 08:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

According to management of the singer: "The information on Hadise participation in the contest is premature, yet unofficial and totally based on rumours" , . There is nothing on her official site as well. I'm removing it, until there is statement on TRT website. Zaqqq (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that refs like you used don't work. And please use a reliable source to contest the three sources confirming Hadise. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You also want to dispute reliability of Eurosong.be yesterday interview with management of the singer? And contradict direct information with some statements tabloid websites? On what ground Eurovision-Turkey is more reliable than Eurosong.be? Once again, there is no confirmation on either а) Hadise site, b) TRT site. Until then, it should not be listed as confirmed. Zaqqq (talk) 03:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, even ESCKaz said that it was confirmed, but taken back to wait for the official announcement. Secondly, ESCToday spoke with TRT and confirmed it. That is the only source we need. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Eurosong.be spoken with the management of the singer and they totally denied it. Studying ESCToday article, I can only see the following: 1) "TRT confirmed to esctoday.com that she was one of the final artists in negotiations" - confirmed, also by management, 2) "Today, we can confirm that she has been invited to sing for the country" - personal assumption of the website and not TRT statement. Zaqqq (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Studying your two references...they are not reliable sources, both practically blogs. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You're going crazy on "your definition" of the word "blog" and completely forget that first rule in sourcing is that article should be verifiable, reliable and accurate. Management clearly denied the story (for whatever reason), while accuracy of ESCToday article can not be verified by official statement of TRT or the singer's management on the official sites. If there is confirmation, TRT will publish it on the it's website and will conduct press-conference. Publishing unconfirmed statements only leads down Wikipedia as Eurovision source. It is no harm to wait couple of days, if it is confirmed, official statement will be on it's way. You should stop using your favourite websites and start more broad view. I presented you a clear link, which is from very reliable Belgian website, and you still dispute it. This clearly shows that you're prejudiced in favour of certain sites, while not following reliability guidance. Zaqqq (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait? Doesn't that contradict everything you say about ESCKaz? (Sorry to bring it up, I am just confused) You say you want to take out reliable source that say TRT confirmed it to them, since 2 sources say her manager says otherwise and will wait for TRT to post it. But didnt you say that ESCKaz.com gets information from broadcasters and posts it too? So how is that any different than these sources, since I don't see the info ESCKaz posts on broadcaster websites either? Greekboy (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

See the difference: 1) ESCKaz says Macedonia is not withdrawing (let's take this case as example). There is no other reliable website saying it IS withdrawing. The links to local press do not have even word Eurovision in it. In first case weight of the ESCKaz article is much more than from the other sources. If some other site publishes statement sourced to Macedonian broadcaster that they are considering withdrawal, it may be contradicting, but no other sites are having that exact stament about Eurovision. 2) ESCToday states Hadise is confirmed. But this time there is other source where it is denied by the management. Here we have clearly two different sources. Even if we will assume they have same weight (though on my opinion weight in reliability of Eurosong.be is much higher, but let's assume they have same weight), they are getting in contradiction, which can be solved only by official statement. Which in this case is only by management or TRT. Zaqqq (talk) 03:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that ESCToday claims contact with management of TRT which leads that source to be the one that is the most reliable. Also note that the TRT Eurovision website is not up yet so the announcement would not be on their website. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Every year, TRT has immediately published the announcement on the day it was really publicly made. I do not see on which grounds ESCToday is more reliable than Eurosong.be is? As per sourcing, you probably should add as Wikipedia guidance then that all articles published as ESCToday are undisputed, then the problem will be solved. Add Oikotimes as well there. It will low the reliability of Wikipedia Eurovision articles in general, but really can it be lower than now anyway? Unlikely that it will distract some users, but really I see here only 3 active ones I see here and they are very satisfied with using "only" ESCToday and Oikotimes as Wikipedia sources (it is even in your Project Eurovision newsletter, which I already pointed). Do it and the discussion will be finished. Zaqqq (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Everyday we deal with people adding unsourced and/or incorrect information. You will be told over and over that no matter how reliable esckaz or eurosong.be or any site that supports your point of view is, they are not appropriate for wikipedia just because you feel like wikipedia is wrong. We only use sources that have a review board for articles (ESCToday, Oikotimes, etc) so we can guarantee their accuracy. When the rfc is complete I have no doubt that what me and the other editors have told you will be supported. Note that the response received already is invalid, I'm not going to get into it for why. Also on the newsletter, I put two sources that i knew were reliable as suggestions for those who are unfamiliar with the idea of sourcing information, something you should be happy about because of the "low the reliability of Wikipedia Eurovision". Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 04:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to get in the middle of this, but when Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 was put up for GA nomination, both ESCToday and Oikotimes were cleared as good sources, if that counts for anything in that situation. Greekboy (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll be strict on the subject and unless there is definite confirmation on TRT site, I will be reverting the article to unlist Hadise as confirmed entrant. The sources you present are clearly not enough to ensure accuracy of this information. Eurosong.be is experienced site, created in 2001 and has board of editors as well, thus you may not discount it as source. And as they present direct statement from the management of the singer, that is enough to ensure the accuracy of their article. If you do not understand Dutch I quote the management of the singer in English: "The magazines, websites etc. who publish this news base it on premature information and rumours. Nothing is final and official". Zaqqq (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Now, as the official confirmation is published on TRT website and Eurovision.tv as well it can be cosidered as confirmed. Zaqqq (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow....really.....So basically your 2 sources were wrong. ESCToday's article from the beginning stated they had confirmation from TRT. But instead you insisted on taking out 3 or 4 good sources because 2 disagreed. I have nothing to say about this really. I tried to stay out of it, but really...wow. Greekboy (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Even if the event is easily predictable, it should not appear here until confirmed. The confirmation came from TRT site and TRT news, and only after this the information could appear in the article. The sources I mentioned were clearly right in their handling of situation, when withdrew the news until official confirmation, while ESCToday preferred to act based on rumours and claimed that the contract was signed 2 days earlier than it really was in order to predict and claim their exclusive. The situation is clearly explained by Eurosong.be where management of Hadise stated that their negotiations appeared to be in danger because some sites and magazines claimed the contract was signed when it really was not, and when it was really signed Eurosong.be was first to publish confirmation from management. Thus, I don't understand your reaction. When real confirmation came, I've immediately informed about it here too. I do not see a reason for wowing, all sources should be verified first. Zaqqq (talk) 07:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

hey what happended greekboy?I said you.Hadise is representing for Turkey.Türkiye.are you suprised?Turkey is the best.Türkiye.so 2010 ın Ankara or Istanbul Eurovision Song Contest.bye....... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.252.208.93 (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No I am not surprised. :) Someone wanted to take out Hadise last night, thats all. Greekboy (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You didn't believe this that Hadise will represent for Türkiye last night.but TRT explained this and TRT confirmed.Hadise will be first but maybe Sakis will be second.:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.252.208.93 (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I did understand it. Another user wanted to take it out, not me. :) Greekboy (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

have you gota msnaddresscan you give me greekboy?I dont talk easly there.

Undecided section

I added Armenia, Croatia, Ireland, Israel, Moldova and Montenegro to the Undecided section. These countries all participated in the 2008 contest, but have not made any announcement about the 2009 contest yet. I felt they needed to be mentioned somewhere atleast. I added the short description ".....participated in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008, but has not made an announcement regarding the 2009 contest yet." I don't know where else they really fit into, with out "opening the door" for users to add other countries/speculation aside from the 2008 countries. Greekboy (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yea, especially since there's a comment above about "where's armenia?". I added a description of the section in addition to the hidden message that greekboy rewrote. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It is completely certain that these countries will participate, however, as there is no single hint on their possible withdrawal and it is again wrong to ASSUME they might withdraw or smth for the sole reasong they do not publicly shout they are it. ESCKaz confirms Moldovan participation, actually, stating "the rules of the national selection are currently being finalized and will be published approximately during the 4th week of October". I do not see why they need to be mentioned as undecided. Being undecided on selection method is not the same as being undecided on ESC participation in general. Zaqqq (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not completely certain until there are sources cited saying so. I originally removed the 2008 undecided as that section was very repetitive with them. I have instead now mentioned them in the introductory paragraph, which seems fair enough. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I repeat the point again: if they haven't made their announcement, that doesn't mean they are UNDECIDED. See? Until proved by source they are undecided, they can not go to this category. Zaqqq (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Not making an announcement would come under the definition of undecided as far as I can see. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We're speaking about PUBLIC announcement. Broadcasters are not obliged to confirm their participation to PUBLIC, they only have to send a small confirmation e-mail to EBU. Undecided means that broadcaster has doubts whether they should be in or not. Not making announcement means either that the work on preselection has not started (like in Armenia, now there is new HoD and he will bring new selection method may be) or work is already ungoing like in Moldova, rules are being finalized. Do a special section, clearly differing UNDECIDED from NOT YET MADE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT then. Zaqqq (talk) 11:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to shout, I think some disagreement is occurring here on what undecided means. A new section could be created for these countries, for the time being I have added the word public to the status of these countries. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but what's about Hungary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.50.114.245 (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It has been added. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The reference posted about Moldova's participation talks about the plans of the Armenian broadcaster too. So, if this reference is considered valid enough for confirming Moldova's participation, Armenia should be added too, with the same reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.163.34.199 (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Albania

If you're so busy with relisting Macedonia and Ukraine with undecided, why you listed Albania is confirmed? Source is not confirming it's participation. It only confirmes that Festival i Kenges will go on as music festival. It is wrong to ASSUME that it will be still used as selection method for Eurovision, as does the author of this article. Thus as this source is not reliable and it's information can't be verified Albania should not be listed among confirmed countries. It is simply acting blind, when participation of Macedonia and Ukraine is confirmed by reliable source, the Albanian is NOT. I have no doubts they will be in, but technically they have not confirmed it. Zaqqq (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not take this dispute any further than it should go. It is obvious in the source that they were confirmed to participate through this festival. It state that the Albanian broadcaster is planning the 2009 selection, which is used as the NF for Eurovision. If you do not like that source, then there is a fresh source today. Greekboy (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The source is clearly based on assumptions that if they did it last year, they will do the same this year. An Albanian source clearly mentioning Eurovision participation will do. I just want to show that your practice using same sources and doing no research beyond that is clearly wrong. Zaqqq (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean "same sources" like you using ESCKaz with no research? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd also add that different sites state different days for Festivali i Kenges: 18-19/12 (2 days only) , 18-19-21/12 , 19-20-21/12 . Let's see which one is right. Zaqqq (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

According to Albanians on ESCforum the correct dates are those published by ESCKaz, Friday 19th December, Saturday 20th December and Sunday 21st December. Clicky. It's nice to see Olta back this year, those who know me know I like her! ńăŧħăń - ŧăłķ 17:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

ESCKaz may or may not be right, but it cannot be used on wiki regardless, so stop trying to take your frustration out on other sites. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're in a position for a final judgement, there were no responces in that discussion lately and you failed to present your grounds on that. So, until clearly proved to be not reliable ESCKaz should be considered as highly reliable source. As written above ESCKaz once again proved it, while ESCToday for example is wrong. Zaqqq (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There were no responses because the discussion is over. There was overwhelming support to exclude ESCKaz from User:Doktorbuk, me, User:Greekboy, User:Camaron, and User:Celticfan383. The only person for using it was you. And once again, ESCToday is not the site on trial here. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Me, 80.126.53.118, User:Tcharge and as it was underlined, it's not a democracy, and your side failed to prove your opinion, which is only based on one reason - the number of editors. You have presented no proof that ESCKaz fails in reliable, accurate category, as it clearly passes WP:SPS even if it has one editor, as the editor is "an established expert on the topic". On the other side, Oikotimes and ESCToday are the sites clearly failing WP:QS, and if we start this discussion I can provide numerous evidences from the past. Zaqqq (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If ESCKaz passes WP:SPS, the which third party reliable source is it published in, the criteria is an expert and third party. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Spanish entrant

I believe that Spain are planning to enter the singer Soraya Arnelas. Can anybody confirm this? Thanks, Thaliafan (21/10/08) 19:33 GMT+1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.109.1.15 (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything about it, but I'll keep my eyes peeled. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Soraya said last week that, if Spain wants her to go to the ESC, she will go, but is unknown if she can go.[1] TVE is working in the national selection, but we don't know how will be it.[2] Montehermoso-spain (talk) (es - commons) 14:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

National Finals in the table?

For the last few years I remember having a 'National Final section' in the table and it would have, say, [[Sweden in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009|Melodifestivalen 2009]] as a link and then the dates for the final of the selection. If the selection was internal it would have [[Switzerland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009|Internal]] as a link. When the National final was over the "Artist" and "Song" column was filled and the National Final section stayed so people could see when the selection was made and click the link to see how it was made. I used to find it really useful so I could plan ahead and mark the dates on my calendar, LOL! Should we have it again this year? I think we should and I would help adding them to the table and updating it. ńăŧħăń - ŧăłķ 17:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

They were taken out maybe a week ago. You can still get to that page by clicking on the countries name where you will find the 2009 page, if it exists. It didn't make much sense to have the national selection columns if they were to just be taken out at a later date (I think that's wiki policy or something). This page is supposed to be about the contest, how and when each country chose their participant is not really necessary here. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Then why did we use it in previous years? ńăŧħăń - ŧăłķ 18:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Because when people start to edit, they don't necessarily know all of the guidelines and conventions. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... ok. I used to love that section. ńăŧħăń - ŧăłķ 18:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Portugese article spam

Why are there a long line of links to the Portugese article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenon2008 (talk • contribs)

There was a problem with one of the templates because a bot added an interwiki incorrectly. It has been fixed. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ireland

What are Ireland doing next year? They aren't mentioned anywhere? --81.103.40.178 (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned under "Undecided" in the lead sentence as not having made a public announcement regarding 2009 yet. Greekboy (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time you asked, maybe try using "find" on your browser next time, that usually helps. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Undecided section (2)

Why should we add ALL the countries who have participated in previous editions. The undecided section which should be called POSSIBLE WITHDRAWALS, should only contain those countries who have expressed their intention to withdraw from the contest. That is why I have deleted Hungary, Israel, etc. Thanks Tony0106 (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it only includes countries that participated last year and "possible withdrawals" couldn't be a worse title since not making an announcement yet has nothing to do with withdrawing. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I saw Morocco a couple of days ago. But anyways, we should remove those as well, if they haven't made any official announcement they shouldn't be in the undecided or possible withdrawals sections, whatever. We've never had an "undecided" section just to include countries who haven't make any announcement yet. I suggest to remove them. Tony0106 (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That was prob. an IP that added it, but as you can see, the article is currently locked because of vandalism. Rather than taking out those countries, the section could be renamed or something. I had originally put them in with a note next to them stating that they have made no public announcement so far. (not necessarily withdrawing though). But as you can see from the disscussion above, they were moved to the lead of the section so it wouldn't be repetitive. Regardless though, they (countries from 2008) should be mentioned somewhere in the article as they related to the 2009 contest. Greekboy (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that they should be mentioned someway. May be just as "took part in 2008, have not made public any plans for 2009". AlexeyU (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I am generally with AlexeyU that they should be mentioned somewhere. I see nothing wrong with their current position but if editors wish to create a new section for them, I don't mind. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Selection date added

Every year we include at least the selection date of the participating song. I haven't followed the page in the past month but I don't see why this section of the table was deleted or forgotten because it was used for the Junior and the Dance contest pages. I hope you let me keep it until all the songs are selected. Tony0106 (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC).

No, it is against wiki policy to add information with the intent on deleting it at a later date. The selection dates are on each individual country's article because an country's selection date is not important to the actual contest, only who they choose. It does not matter if it was done in the past or on other articles because not all editors know the guidelines. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I took out the selection dates. It goes against Wikipedia:Recentism since the info will be taken out in a couple of months again. (And thus serves no purpose to the long term goal of the article) It might have been done before, but please remember Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Just because it exists or was done before, doesn't make it right. Greekboy (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The selection day should be included in national pages, like Sweden in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009, but I agree, they should not be in this main page. AlexeyU (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked this a few weeks back! ńăŧħăń - ŧăłķ 20:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Is it necessary to have so much references about every song/artist/country confirmation? For example there are 4 citations (one in Dutch!) about the De Toppers confirmation for the Netherlands. I think that it would be more than enough with just one reference. Danoples (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Until Eurovision.tv and the EBU officially reveal the participating countries, then every country and song/singer until then has to be sourced individually. When they officially reveal the list later this month or December, then all the citations can be taken out in favor of the main list like in previous years. Same goes for the performers and songs later on too. Greekboy (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that every country/song/singer should be sourced individually. What I meant is that there should be no more than one citation for a specific song or artist. Next to Sakis Rouvas we have at this moment the citation of Esctoday, Oikotimes and a greek website. It's not necessary to have three different references about the same news. Danoples (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Carbon copy of Greekboy's answer. Until the EBU reveal the participating countries, everything must be sourced. The more times the better really. ńăŧħăń - ŧăłķ 20:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit notice

An edit notice has been added to this article to allow easier communication to editors. See WT:EURO for details. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source?

do you think is reliable the source sayig that Armenia, Montenegro and San Marino will take part at ESC 2009??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.27.177.43 (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about the website used for Armenia and Montenegro, so I am not sure if it is reliable. However, Oikotimes seems to think the current number of confirmed participants is forty-two, which includes Armenia and Montenegro. There is clearly some uncertainty over San Marino, so I think defaulting to not yet confirmed is sensible. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro singer - true or not?

Someone edited the article stating that Ninu Petković will represent Montenegro in ESC. I've read the source and translated it into English through Google Translate (no, not the best way of translating an article but you can just about understand it) and it can be read here. By the looks of it, the source looks like it's saying three students; "Igor Cukrova, Nin Petkovic and Micah Mirjana Kostic" may participate for Montenegro but it's not very clear.. Can we reach some sort of consensus on it? If it was true, then i'm sure it'd be mentioned on a website such as Oikotimes, ESCToday or eurovision.tv... -Diggiloo (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the source did not seem to verify the text, and defaulting to removal of it is sensible. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

San Marino: reliable source?

is that a reliable a source about San Marino? --79.52.178.188 (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm skeptical so I changed it back to possible withdrawal. The official list of participants will be out soon and all of this will be sorted out. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

me too, I'm skeptical--79.52.178.188 (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Monaco: reliable source?

is that a reliable source about Monaco???--79.46.22.189 (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say no, I took it out. Sorry I can't edit while I'm asleep :P. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The EBU has released the list of entries. Monaco is not one of them. End of story. doktorb _words^deeds 17:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait, they did already? Where's this list? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The official list hasn't been released yet. -Diggiloo (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Latvia - in or out

It seems to me that Latvia seems to have withdrawn, but should we remove them from the table or not, or should we wait until the EBU says that they're gone? Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, ESCKaz says they're out (according to the Head of Delegation for Latvia) and Oikotimes and ESCToday are unsure on the matter so I suggest we wait until the EBU officially say they're out. -Diggiloo (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Now, Oiko and ESCKaz are both claiming they're out, along with a bunch of other websites. I think it's safe to say they're out now. -Diggiloo (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing countries

Can we wait until the official list of participating countries is released by the EBU before removing countries. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

San Marino and Latvia have now announced they will NOT be participating in moscow http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/12736 http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/12732 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zibjah (talk • contribs) 18:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Until the list is actually released or latvia/san marino officially confirm they aren't participating then we should leave it at that. -Diggiloo (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

But we know from the news report on ESCToday and elsewhere that the deadline was the 8th, because Latvia may have to repay the fee. So surely we can summise that the full list is how we have it without SNM and LTV? The alternative is edit wars and mass reverts over the next few weeks...doktorb _words^deeds 19:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it just be easier to ask an admin to change the Edit Notice to say not to edit that Latvia + Lithuania + San Marino are out? - Diggiloo (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually it says that the deadline was extended because some countries were still deciding. Also many of these countries have only announced their intent to withdraw and the EBU is still working to keep them in. Let's wait. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

National finals? in a different section?

Can't we at least put the dates of a national final in another section with other events as well? something like this:

Calendar of events

National selections

• Albania - 21 December 2008

Eurovision events

• Draw for the running order - 23 March 2009

Just a suggestion. What you guys say?

Tony0106 (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the selection dates of each specific country is not necessary on the main contest page. It will clutter up the page and doesn't really have anything to do with the contest, only the winner of the selection is important, not how and when it was selected. This is why each country has its own page. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Translation of artist names

As my last edit (Casey Tola to Kejsi Tola) was reverted I start this topic. I think it has no sense to translate a name if it's written in a language that uses latin alphabet, like Albanian. You can't compare it with Greek, where you have to translate it to something that is understandable for English readers. If we translate Kejsi Tola to Casey Tola, then we should also translate De Toppers to The Toppers or in the 2006 page Luiz Ejli to Louis Ejli. Danoples (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that "j" does not make that sound in the English language and there already is an accepted spelling of the name. We also have Iceland's Eurobandio who's name was translated to Euroband. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Kalomira's real name is 'Kalomoira' or something like that, but it was changed for ESC so people can pronounce it right. If the Albanian delegation end up doing something like this, that is the time it'll be changed on this article. -Diggiloo (talk) 10:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Kejsi Tola. (Kay-see). Isn't it obvious? ńăŧħăń - ŧăłķ 18:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh and it was Eurobandid, not Eurobandio. ńăŧħăń - ŧăłķ 18:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line is that it is up to the broadcaster and the EBU how the name will be spelled for Eurovision. It doesnt matter if there is a silent letter, or an established similar sounding name in English already. Perfect example: Marija and Maria. Serbia decided to send her to Eurovision as "Marija" even though it is pronounced and widely used in the English language as "Maria". So far the Albanian broadcaster is using "Kejsi", so we must respect that spelling and use it. Greekboy (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Translation of song names

I've noticed that the song name on screen for Kejsi Tola's song is 'Më merr në ëndërr' (a screenshot can be seen here ) and not "Më mërr në ëndërr" like ESCToday and Oikotimes have labeled it (the difference is that RTSH label the 'merr' without an umlaut on the E, whereas ESCToday and Oikotimes do). ESCKaz have it labeled the same way as on screen too. I have changed it all around so the song title is as it is on screen, if you object to this, please reply. -Diggiloo (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and I have confirmation from an Albanian person. And the double dots on the 'e' is a diaeresis, not an umlaut. ńăŧħăń - ŧăłķ 18:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

A bit off topic here but im new to using this, just in the song language for Croatia could someone change it to Croatian, if you look here:http://esckaz.com/2009/cro.htm you'll see all the songs are in the croatian language that are competing in the Dora final. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ant-TOE-knee (talk • contribs) 12:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say it's going to be in Croatian. -Diggiloo (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually we need a source that says specifically that. Unless we have heard all the songs and can actually confirm it ourselves, it could just be one line in an English song for all we know. Also, sometimes, say for instance Iceland 2008, the song was in Icelandic, but was sung in English at ESC. We just don't know enough right now. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources in the tables

I understand that we are waiting for the main list to be released by the EBU until we take out the individual sources for the countries from the table. But what about the sources for the individual songs like Albania? We usually don't source each song in the table. Greekboy (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the "curse of the {{fact}} frenzy" has caused this. However it is probably best that we do cite where there is likely to be argument (such as spellings and languages). doktorb _words^deeds 18:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's best to wait for the 'list' from the EBU until we delete all of the sources saying ____ will participate. - Diggiloo (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The final list of participants includes songs and artists when all are chosen, that is why say the 2008 page does not have the refs everywhere. Once the list of participants is out, we can unsource them, but the songs and artists will continue to need sources. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean anything about the sourcing of the countries. I know they have to be sourced until the list comes out. And I know that disputed languages have to be sourced, while disputed names usually get a hidden note. But the songs are never sourced in any other case or year. Greekboy (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Here. Let me re-phrase this all. There should normally be no individual sources in the tables for the artists, songs, and languages as this is an overview page. It should only be included if it is disputed, and even then we usually just add a note. For example, Albania picked their song through their song festival. The artist and the song should not be individually sourced. I understand that the countries are individually sourced right now since they are disputed since no official list has come out, but bottom line is that now that selections are starting, their shouldn't be individual sources for songs and artists. A perfect example on the table should by is Eurovision Song Contest 2008. Only disputed things are sourced or have added notes. Greekboy (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I think this is a result of people being jumpy about facts being uncited (remember the famous case of an editor putting the "fact" template after the claim "the human hand has five fingers"). The table is going to look messy if we cite everything, but I guess in the case of Albania there is the spelling and the translation we need to prove are true...doktorb _words^deeds 06:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really, no one will argue the spelling and translation, it is the same everywhere, though I'm leaning towards having at least one source just to make it easier to identify vandalism. I don't want to have to check the artist's page, the song's page, and the country's page searching to see if it is actually sourced somewhere. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

On an overview page, and especially in a table, you shouldn't need a source. Especially if there are sub-pages. Greekboy (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Armenia artist selection

As far as I can see the Azeria Press Agency is a reliable source and the claims it makes are worth noting; in particular I doubt it would make hoax claims of happenings in the Turkish Parliament, which are quite significant. I am moving details of this to the entry article, but I will accept leaving the table here as saying TBD as the broadcaster does not appear to have confirmed the claimed selection. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This was the reason I removed System of a Down from the article; because the broadcaster hadn't announced that they were sending System of a Down. I suggest we make a 'rule' and stick to it that in an event of an internal selection (which is going to be the case for eight countries this year) only add their participants into the article if that certain singer/act has been announced to represent that country in 2009. - Diggiloo (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well most sourcing in articles should rely on secondary sources (i.e. ESCToday, Oikotimes), rather than primary sources (i.e. the broadcasters) per WP:V#Reliable sources, though both can be used. I am happy to be on the safe side and leave it as TBD at present as no other reliable source (that I know of) has said System of the Down is going to Moscow, and none have said the broadcaster has confirmed it. However, if multiple numbers of reliable secondary sources say xyz is confirmed then that is enough to add it, a direct announcement from the broadcaster is helpful but it is not strictly necessary per WP:V. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)