Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

New article

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.

---

Would any editors support creating a new article titled "Controversies of the Eurovision Song Contest 2024", which would combine everything in the current #Incidents and controversies section, as well as a big chunk of the Israel in Eurovision 2024 article — IмSтevan ^talk 17:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I would support that.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think that’s warranted. I think this article deals with sufficiently already.Tvx1 19:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Completely unnecessary

there are already articles on each country.

Another article is pointless duplication. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it's almost necessary - each annual event article contains very little specific information, most split out into country-by-year sub-articles. To comply with broadness and neutrality (i.e. giving appropriate levels of coverage for all aspects), there's no way the 'overview' article should then be so specific about controversies. It should have its own sub-article, too. Kingsif (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Nothing is necessary on Wikipedia. Tvx1 00:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Very true and such an article would just be duplicative and go into far too much detail on Israel which is the real reason why this is being proposed.

It must be remembered this is an encyclopaedia not a repository for all things on a news item where people are shouting loudly. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems implicitly clear that you oppose a very sensible split just because you don't want another article mentioning criticisms of Israel. I encourage you to see this request in the good faith way I believe it was intended, as a sensible procedural move to contain relevant information when it is too large for an overview article. Kingsif (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems you believe unequivocally for the split so lets leave it there. Phrasing like "a very sensible split just because..." is irrelevant and not of value to this discussion. Also your claims regarding Israel should be stuck as a personal attack as you are casting an aspersion based on something which your are conclusion jumping to. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I was replying to you, not making a point for discussion - the phrasing is of value in addressing your irrelevant objections. But let's leave it there if you're going to keep making up irrelevant reasons and pointing to whataboutisms to try and prevent a very sensible split because you WP:DONTLIKEIT. Kingsif (talk) 11:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This is notice of disengagement with you as you are engaged in attacks and conclusion jumping and are not constructive in your comments. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Wait, so (below) I ask for you to explain your reasons and stop saying my comments have no value, and you think you're being constructive. Glad you'll leave me alone, though, after you just actively sought out one of my replies to somebody else to try and completely dismiss my arguments for no reason. Kingsif (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not see any argument from you supporting the sensibility of this split, apart from you stating that the general article should not be too specific. So it seems you call for more specificity, which according to you should then be covered in a separate article. I really don't think Wikipedia is an appropriate place to very specifically cover controversies at Eurovision. The historic value is little, as the controversies, media coverage aside, do not have any impact or consequences outside Eurovision. So I think the general event article is appropriate enough to cover the controversies, even more so because the general article provides the context in which those controversies took place, which might get lost in a separate article. Hhl95 (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Strongly support This year is definitely the most controversial ever with loads of incidents, there's not much detail in the current main article (which should be mostly a TL;DR). Tidjani Saleh (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

It hardl is. This just is recentism. Tvx1 00:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Nope it is not, it just feels like it is because of recentism. It could easily be argued the UK act getting attacked on stage was more controversial or the allegations of a winner snorting drugs was more controversial. You could reach back into Cliff Richard losing for Britain in 1968 because of alleged Spanish vote buying or the year Celine Dione won for Switzerland by a single point. Throughout the years controversy reigns. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. There has never been an artist being disqualified in the middle of the contest, or the potential of an unfolding lawsuit after the contest, and a narrow victory is hardly comparable to incidents which have police involvement. Kapitan110295 (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Not sure about wether a specific article is necessary or not, but it definitely needs expansion. For example, there's no mention of Bambie Thug's complaint to the EBU regarding Kan's commentary about them. Vnizette (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the existing section covers the controversies enough. There is no need for a new article in my opinion. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 04:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

We're still missing all the stuff regarding Bambie Thug, iolanda, Nemo, Olly Alexander, Slimane, 5 minuust & Puuluup, Tali, and many reports of the Israeli delegation's actions - and probably more I can't think of off the top of my head — IмSтevan ^talk 07:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This is why I support a separate article. Going into detail about the experiences of every artist would take a long time but would still be important and would be better in it's own article DukeDragon28 (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

All of that best goes on the individual articles of the acts, no need to duplicate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PicturePerfect666 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Then why not just put all of it at the artist's/country's articles? Answer: because it's also relevant to the running of the competition. But given the extreme length of this overall article, and the lack of detail about any other topic, it is not appropriate to go into any level of depth for the relevant controversies. If there was only one or two, as in many previous years, that would be more appropriate, but not when it's multiple incidents and getting longer than the hosting section. The information is good to keep but should be split, on procedural grounds, and any !vote about not liking multiple articles is completely irrelevant. Kingsif (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The above is an excuse to create duplication and that goes against Wikipedia. there are always controversies at every year and simply going well now is absurd. Keep to the country articles and the main article. no more articles are needed as that is just a waste of Wikipedia space and duplication. "given the extreme length of this overall article, and the lack of detail about any other topic" This is covered by Wikipedia policies to stop excessive detail, focus on recentism, news reporting and treating Wikipedia as a repository for everything. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

If you can't distinguish between an explanation of good reasons to split, and excuses to create duplication – or, more likely, refuse to acknowledge the difference when you just don't want the split – then you have no place commenting. Just explain your reasons if you have them and stop attacking the integrity/value of mine. Kingsif (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Please tone down and abandon the conclusion jumping and aspersions. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, you stalk my comments, try and write my views off completely, and you don't think you're the one who needs to tone it down. I thought we talked about this. Kingsif (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Going into detail about the experiences of every artist is not encyclopaedic and does not warrant a separate article; it doesn't even warrant coverage on Wikipedia at all. Hhl95 (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Right now? Probably not needed (though the existing section should definitely mention more of the behind the scenes stuff around Bambie and KAN). But definitely should be kept in mind for the future, some of these controversies are likely to continue well past the contest. Euan777777 (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - A separate article is unnecessary. The mere length of an article cannot be enough reason to split it up. Question is whether the topic itself deserves a standalone article and I don't think so in this case. If your goal is to shorten the article, I strongly suggest removing the OGAE voting paragraph, since that has nothing to do with the official event and gives a level of importance to the OGAE that they don't have. OGAE voting over the years is a prime example of a topic that would warrant a separate article. Hhl95 (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  The mere length of an article cannot be enough reason to split it up. – No? Length is an incredibly common reason for splitting. And, per ITN comments, is a major concern at this article. The two-sentence OGAE paragraph would barely make a dent.

  For what it's worth, I personally think that, in terms of length, there are many other things that need splitting or condensing. I'm writing a separate proposal below. My personal concerns with the length of this controversies section (as mentioned above) is that it's too long compared to the lengths of sections of other things that are more important.

  As for topic - a really good thing to bring up by the way - there's a reason that when long articles get split up, the controversies and issues and concerns kind of sections are among the first to go: tangential to the main event, but relevant in how it was received, detail is good but not priority. Kingsif (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Per WP:SIZESPLIT however, the current length of the article (64 kB prose size or 4716 words readable prose) does not justify a split based on length alone. As for WP:UNDUE, given there are several individual paragraphs, the subject of the large majority of these has been covered in great detail within media, leads me to believe that the weight attributed to the section is justified given the number of events which have taken place in the lead up to this year's contest. I would however potentially merge some of these into the respective country in contest by year articles, or into other sections, given that there is a lot of overlap in terms of the root cause for some of these. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Agree with Kingsifs reply to Hhl95 above - the article is way too long however the controversy section isn't the issue and in fact when I preview-removed that whole section it barely did anything in terms of length, the broadcast table and Participating countries table are excessively long and probably should be condensed or split, Right solution just the wrong section listed. –Davey2010^Talk 15:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Is there a way to make those tables collapsible so they take up less space? The information in those tables (while long) pertains more to the contest as a whole than the controversy section. JPStrickler (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Several of those tables can just be removed or shortened. I did some suggestions further down the talk page, where there is another section about the length of the article. Hhl95 (talk) 08:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Per PicturePerfect666 and Davey2010. IMHO, the controversies are already well presented in the existing section. GidiD (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support - the section is missing a lot of events, but expanding it might take up too much of the focus D4NT3023 (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support - there's a lot in that section, and I could see the use of splitting it off into a new page. JPStrickler (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Why though there are already 37 sub pages we don’t need a 38th. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support - This seems sensible to me. These things are more loosely related to the contest than most of the other segments, and splitting it to another article would be logical. Zouki08 (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose By and large, these controversies can be covered in detail on the individual '[Country] in the Eurovision Song Contest 2024', with only a summary on this page. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Strongly support

A lot has been going on, and Eurovision 2024 shouldn't become bloated or unnavigatable. Thomediter (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose I am sure the proposal is made with good intentions but fear it would only whitewash the main article by removing the controversies to an article few are likely to visit now that the event is over. Jeppiz (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as this should not be its own article. It needs to stay as a section of the current one to keep all of the contest history together. Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this should be slipt, keep it all together to let people know of what happened to this contest specifically. Jhlords2 (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I would support it, as it would keep the main article navigable and allow the full details of the controversies be found in one place, not buried and summarised in the main article. JeuIro8 (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, and think this is why the controversies of the contest should also be its own article. Each article should cover its own controversies in a quick summary, but we need more space to cover the controversies in much broader detail. It is unlikely that this will be the last we hear about this year's incidents, and we need more space to update it as it all unfolds. Kapitan110295 (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support There were numerous minor incidents and major ones this year, and the controversy section will likely soon take up half the article if not acted upon. This will place undue emphasis on negativities. Criticism and incidents at a contest relate directly to that contest and should be covered somewhere relevant and be consistent. A dedicated article makes perfect sense! UaMaol (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  The issue is Wikipedia is not for every little thing considered ‘a controversy’ PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  The controversies are hardly "little things". Your attempts at refuting every single argument here that supports a new article are weak. 「HypeBoy」^TALK 11:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  The arguments in support are even weaker… Tvx1 11:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  It’s true what is said though about recentism, cruft, bias, NPOV, and balance in these sections. There are already 37 sub articles and a 38th is just a recentism fork because of loudness regarding current events. Give this a fortnight and all the noise will have gone and this year will be no different to other years. Something always happens at Eurovision. This year it was anti-Israel, previously it was the uk getting attacked on stage, previously it was Russia being excluded, previously it was the inclusion of Bosnia on 1992. All as controversial as the the recent events fresh in people’s minds. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  This an unfounded crystalball statement. The controversies section actually only takes up a relatively small part of the article. If anything the coverage should be reduced rather than increased by giving it a separate article. Tvx1 11:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  For main body content, ignoring titles, tables, images and infoboxes, the word count current stands at around 4700, but the controversy section is around 900, which is 19% of the article. This is pretty large and has grown since my original voicing of support. Reduction of content would be unencyclopædic and frankly a whitewash. UaMaol (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  4700 words is well below the bar warranting a split per WP:SPLIT Tvx1 21:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strongly support: I absolutely think that there is very little coverage of the controversies of the Eurovision Song Contest, and there has never been an artist getting disqualified in the middle of the contest before, so this is without question the most controversial edition ever. It is vital to cover the controversies of the contest given how much they reflect and even shape the geopolitics of the countries involved, so I think Controversies of the Eurovision Song Contest should also be its own article. Kapitan110295 (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  There already is such an article. Tvx1 11:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  That is "political controversies", not every controversy is political — IмSтevan ^talk 11:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support per Kingsif and Kapitan110295. 「HypeBoy」^TALK 11:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose While 2024 has certainly been on the more extreme scale when it comes to controversial editions, I do think creating this article would fall within the WP:RECENTISM bracket. I believe that continuing to host relevant controversies on this article is the better call, keeping it in summary where necessary while delving into further information on already existing sub-articles, such as the country in contest by year articles. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Support, as this is common for international competitions--i.e. 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris, 2022 World Cup in Qatar, etc. The controversies section often covers unrelated but important content that is better suited for its own section, as this is a song contest, while the controversies section includes (for example) content about the Israel-Hamas War. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Support, since "the inclusion of Israel" on the top page seems to have become the centerpiece of the whole article as it is above the paragraph that cover more important topic such as the winner and top five. Tonyb1989 (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Then the article needs changing so that Israel is not "the centerpiece of the whole article" PicturePerfect666 (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - As per the arguments previously and per WP:POVFORK. I don't think a new article is necessary or warranted, and that it is fine for all this information regarding controversies to be in the main article. I believe that creating a separate article would just lead to content forking. I think that it would be more balanced to have it all under one article. IJA (talk) 09:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree I think there is going to be so many controversies after this that a separate page would be necessary 2.99.129.57 (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Support per JohnAdams1800. Isthmus55 (t • c) 13:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - Agree with others that those calling for a separate article will be falling into WP:RECENTISM. Fundamentally, it is better to keep the core controversies here (as Sims2aholic8 notes, in summary and adding any additional information to the country entry subarticles), rather than go into endless detail in a separate article that isn't going to be anymore succinct or NPOV. MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Unnecessary as no other year had separate pages for their controversies, keep things consistent as this was not the first nor last Eurovision year filled with controversy (we just have more online news coverage of it). Most people when they want to look at the controversies, they are gonna first search for it through the main yearly page, separating it would just cause needless redirects. On top of that the section is not large enough to warrant a separate page. Nickpunk (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Wait a few months. There is currently some sort of criminal charges being filed against Joost Klein, and the historical significance of this Eurovision's controversies cannot be predicted ahead of time. We should wait a few months and see how these controversies progress and if they receive sustained coverage or even merit their own individual articles. JohnR1Roberts (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support per arguments made above. I don't think there has ever been a ESC as controversial as this year's and I don't think that this is the result of recentism. An article that includes this year's controversies (it doesn't necessarily have to be an extremely lengthy one) might actually be warranted here. I don't really think that the current state of this article summarizes the incidents/controversies well enough with due amount of weight to each one. Piccco (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YEARTEST. There is also a serious danger of any separate article focusing too much on the Israel situation. The proposal for a new article seems to be born out of a want to re-admit all of the content that was (correctly) removed. A separate article would suffer from the same issue as the current controversies section, i.e. not being overlong on some issues and overlooking some others. I am very concerned that it would not be sufficiently balanced between the Israel participation itself and the other controversies that occurred, especially the Dutch DSQ. I am also concerned that, rightly or wrongly, the creation of a new article would be seen as being biased and unduly drawing attention to the issue. Any large detail should be included within Israel in the Eurovision Song Contest 2024 and Netherlands in the Eurovision Song Contest 2024. Spa-Franks (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose – If this section were at the beginning of the article, then one might argue in favour, but some kind of summary would then ideally need to be included. Given that it is at the end of the article, however, readers who aren't interested in the issues discussed don't have to wade through it to get more basic information. As it stands the section is about the right length, and as has been noted above, creating a separate article would run the risk of encouraging the inclusion of additional, largely superfluous content. At the very least, I would suggest waiting, for the reason JohnR1Roberts (talk) has outlined. (Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC))
• Strong Oppose WP:NOTNEWS among others come to mind and as already fell to superfluous details and now shortened to main points to feat this article's scope; not to mention thankfully much neutralized in the description of breaches or attempts of rules breaches by different sides and delegations; as been said somewhere above for root causes e.g actions deemed to breach the EBU a-political rules, therefore more details pertaining to each delegation should be covered still succinctly for and according to several sources notability, at the respective 2024 countries articles. אומנות (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Currently it's only 1,300 words and some of the controversies are already split off into their own article. I see no good reason to have it so we have three (possibly four if the singer's page has it) pages with near identical content. It may be better to have separate articles for more of the individual controversies (assuming they meet notability on their own), but I fail to see the need for a general controversy article. Traumnovelle (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Supportive - It is clear at this point that the Incidents and controversies section has is a primary focus of this article, for better or worse. Given the multiple removed or trimmed sections, sanctions imposed through the contentious topics rules, and the number of pages that readers would need to visit to read each controversy due to how some or all of the details are on country sub-pages, it would be much better to have an article focused entirely on the various controversies. This would allow the main article to just focus on summaries of the most prominent controversies and allow the country sub-pages to get less bogged down with all of the issues. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd be supportive of keeping everything on this article in detail, and redirecting to this article from individual country articles — IмSтevan ^talk 10:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I get trying to keep everything on the main article, but given all the cutting and the issues, I don't believe it is practical at this point. I think it is better to split off and give the proper due weight to the various issues that occurred than to try to manage this odd system of splitting things between this article a dozen sub-articles. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

DATA !!! To place the relevant section in context, it is around 1260 words long. The entire article, excluding headings, images, tables, and references (but not the list of presenters or notes) is around 5680 words in length. The section therefore comprises approximately 22% of the article text. The images and tables, however, add a considerable amount of bulk. Scrolling through the whole article on my mobile phone, excluding only the references and anything below them, then the section in question takes up about 10% of "column inches". (Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC))

A SUMMARY OF OPINION:

If I have placed anyone in the wrong section, or overlooked you entirely, please indicate this with a brief reply and I apologise in advance for any errors. Obviously, this summary says nothing about the rights or wrongs of any particular point of view!!

The motion is:

This house believes that a separate article entitled "Controversies of the Eurovision Song Contest 2024" should be created.

FOR (17):

• BabbaQ (talk)
• Kingsif (talk)
• Tidjani Saleh (talk)
• Kapitan110295 (talk)
• DukeDragon28 (talk)
• D4NT3023 (talk)
• JPStrickler (talk)
• Zouki08 (talk)
• Thomediter (talk)
• JeuIro8 (talk)
• Kapitan110295 (talk)
• HypeBoy (talk)
• JohnAdams1800 (talk)
• Tonyb1989 (talk)
• Isthmus55 (talk)
• Piccco (talk)
• Super Goku V (talk)

AGAINST (24):

• PicturePerfect666 (talk)
• Hhl95 (talk)
• Aris Odi| (talk)
• Hhl95 (talk)
• Euan777777 (talk) (with caveat)
• Sims2aholic8 (talk) (with caveat)
• Davey2010(talk)
• JPStrickler (talk)
• GidiD (talk)
• A.D.Hope (talk)
• Jeppiz (talk)
• Ktkvtsh (talk)
• Jhlords2 (talk)
• Tvx1talk
• UaMaol (talk)
• Sims2aholic8 (talk)
• IJA (talk)
• MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk)
• Nickpunk (talk)
• Spa-Franks (talk)
• Edwin of Northumbria (talk)
• אומנות (talk)
• Traumnovelle (talk)
• ImStevan (talk) (as per reply to Super Goku V)

UNDECIDED / WAIT (2):

• Vnizette (talk)
• JohnR1Roberts (talk)

The few opinions expressed anonymously have been discounted.

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 01:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC))

• Closure request filed - In the interest of full transparency a closure request has now been filed.

PicturePerfect666 (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@PicturePerfect666: So is there no issue with this discussion? If so, will you be willing to remove it and those participants from the Dispute resolution noticeboard? --Super Goku V (talk) 04:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Closure filings are standard for discussions which have clearly been exhausted or going over the same ground. Additionally on a contentious topic such as this an uninvolved individual closing it is the best way to avoid inflaming issues on a contentious subject. The dispute resolution process and the closure request being filed are distinct and not dependant on the other.

There are no plans on amending the discussions listed or the participants listed at the dispute resolution page. The introduction to this discussion section explicitly includes Israel as a reason for the proposal “as well as a big chunk of the Israel in Eurovision 2024 article”. So its inclusion is obvious. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 04:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the closure request filing. I do have a problem with your DRN request listing this split discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Given the last few minutes, I no longer have a problem at all. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Move "political controversies" to just "controversies"

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.

---

An alternative solution would be moving the Political controversies in the Eurovision Song Contest to Controversies in the Eurovision Song Contest and then expanding it — IмSтevan ^talk 11:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a can of worms proposal and would be so large potentially, that it would be unmanageable. The reason political controversies are separate is because of the apolitical nature of the contest. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, I think keeping the subject of this article to just those controversies where politics played a part, and in particular providing context for longer-term controversies, is more relevant and more useful to the reader. There would be several "controversies" in part editions which I believe would fall under WP:TRIVIA, so keeping a focus here on political trends and addressing individual controversies which occured in a specific year on those individual articles is a much more useful way of approaching the situation. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@ImStevan: Why are you directing discussion for this on this talk page and not on the respective article's talk page? UaMaol (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussions are linked in my opinion — IмSтevan ^talk 20:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

While that makes sense if there wasn't a move discussion created on that page, the fact is that there is one right now. That could lead to a problem where consensus forms on one page to move and on the other page not to move. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Support as creating numerous "controversy" pages for Eurovision could lead to a controversy of its own. Ktkvtsh (talk) 00:21, 14 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.

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 22 May 2024 - Wikicomment at start of article's source

The article's source starts with the wikicomment:

<!- - Do not add Israel incidents or any issues related to the lede, regarding Israel, as Israel is not the focus of this article. This has been discussed and consensus shows this to be the case - ->

It's just below the infobox source, above the lede. It is not visible to readers but it is visible to editors.

I've had a look through the talk page and cannot see where there is consensus for this. The closest discussion is here: [1] but there does not seem to be any consensus indicating this comment is warranted, and in fact consensus seems to be leaning the other direction. It also contradicts the fact there is mentioning of Israel in the lede.

Please could this comment be removed because it seems unnecessary, incorrect, against consensus, POV pushing, and an attempt to police other editors without any authority. BugGhost🎤 08:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

This comment appears to have been added on 18 May by PicturePerfect666 (see here). I will admit I have not been engaged with the talk page of this article much over the past number of weeks so I'm not fully abreast of the situation, so I'll leave it to them to respond and explain their action. Personally, and per MOS:LEAD, I believe there should at least be some mention of the various challenges that were experienced during this year's contest, which is already achieved somewhat right now. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

 Already done by Yoyo360. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Revert needed

Can someone revert [2] which is part of an edit war performed out of process? The Satanator (talk) 01:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

No. Please discuss in the RFC below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

The direct link to the discussion is Here.

If I have missed anyone off please add yourself. If I have included you by mistake then I apologise. I didn't want to miss people off who were involved by accident.

PicturePerfect666 (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Please note the discussion has now been closed at the dispute resolution as a decline to take the case. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Do we need "the inclusion of Israel" paragraph on the top page?

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.

---

Controversies have their own topic in this article. I don't understand why Israel's participation has to get special mention on the top page. Usually the top page only includes dates, location, and the withdrawing and returning countries. "The inclusion of Israel" should be removed. It is right after Romania's decision to opt-out. What does Romania opting out have to do with "the inclusion of Israel"? Tonyb1989 (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Tonyb1989 In normal circumstances such a line would not be included, however Israel's participation this year has generated heaps of media coverage and controversy that it would be unfeasible to leave it out from lead entirely. Other experienced editors may be able to provide further reasoning for this though. Pdhadam (talk) 07:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I would like more reasoning. I understand that Israel's participation has created controversy. But I cannot find other articles where the controversy is mentioned in the top page. So yes, I would like to read more reasoning. Why other controversies are not on the top page on other years? Tonyb1989 (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah take it out it’s undue weight and npov PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Not really, all every media outlet has been writing about is Israel's inclusion — IмSтevan ^talk 19:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not needed as this is not a news site. Media ink spilt does not mean Wikipeida follows suit. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

We cover what reliable sources cover. On a related note, would you please revert yourself until there is a consensus to remove? --Super Goku V (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia and not a news outlet to "cover" something. Also in 2021 Belarus was originally intended to participate but was later removed, same with Russia in 2022. Those were facts, maybe controversial but factual when talking about participants' list (it was meant to participate, but not anymore). "The inclusion of Israel" on the top page seems to be something motivated by news outlet. On a furthernote, and who are you to tell me to 'revert myself'? You are basically responding to me and telling me I should not respond back? Is that correct? Why are you personally attacking me? Tonyb1989 (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Tonyb1989: Just to make it clearer Tony, you are replying to my reply to someone else so I will do my best to respond.

You asked where the lede mentions controversies since you asked for an example: Yes. I would like more reasoning. [...] But I cannot find other articles where the controversy is mentioned in the top page. [...] Why other controversies are not on the top page on other years? So, I gave you examples where the lede mentioned a controversy which follows our WP:LEDE policy. So 2022, 2021, 2019, 2017, 2016, 2012, and 2009 are all recent examples. In my opinion, there isn't a difference between the older articles and this article.

To give an example, here is a specific comparison with the ledes of the 1979 article and the 2019 article to the 2024 article: "Nineteen countries participated in the contest with Turkey deciding not to participate after Arab countries had pressured it into not participating in a contest held in Israel" versus "The lead-up to the contest was met with controversy on multiple fronts, primarily on issues surrounding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict – this eventually led to demonstrations by interval act performer Madonna and Icelandic entrants Hatari during the broadcast of the final" versus "The inclusion of Israel among the participants in the context of the Israel–Hamas war was met with controversy, and additional security measures were put in place for the event." As you can see, the inclusion of Israel has generated some controversy at times, which is why Political controversies in the Eurovision Song Contest covers Israel the most, followed by Russian and Ukraine. All of these are factual. If your issue is just the wording about "The inclusion of Israel", then it wasn't made clear until now.

On a furthernote, and who are you to tell me to 'revert myself'? You are basically responding to me and telling me I should not respond back? Is that correct? Why are you personally attacking me? Nope, that was not directed to you, but was instead directed to another user who edited the main article, but who didn't get a consensus. At the moment from my perspective, only two users support removal and two three users support keeping. (Not counting myself at the moment as I am not fully sure given other discussions below.) Thus, I was asking them to Self-revert or to undo their edit to the main article until they did get a consensus. Since they didn't, likely because my request might not have been visible enough, I have just restored the text myself. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Amended after reviewing the matter. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Tonyb1989: They are mentioned. Starting with Eurovision Song Contest 2022, where the lede covers Russia's exclusion. In the 2021 article, Belarus' disqualification for missing the deadline is covered. With the 2019 article, there are at least three mentions in the lede: Ukraine's withdrawal and the last paragraph covering issues in both the lead-up and the final. The 2017 article covers Russia's withdraw after their intended singer was barred from competing. The 2016 article mentions Romania's disqualification due to unpaid debts. The 2012 article covers both human right issues in Azerbaijan and issues involving Iran. The 2009 article mentions the withdrawal of Georgia due to the song selected being disqualified.

To wrap this up so that I don't have to check every article, the earliest issue I could find covered by the lede (other than a controversial song) was the boycott by four countries of the 1970 edition. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

First. I am not allow to do any edits so, I still don't understand why you keep on telling me to "revert myself" and "stop making edits". Secondly, all of the examples you gave were of countries that ended up not participating. This is the first time a controversy surrounding a participating country is mentioned in the top page. For example, the 2014 article makes no mention of "the inclusion of Russia" on its top page. The participation of Russia was controversial after the passing of the Russian gay propaganda law which lead to booing of The Tolmachevy Sisters and during the voting. Instead "the inclusion of Russia" is relegated to the "incident" section. I don't have an issue with the wording. My issue is that it should be relegated to the "incidents" section. The top page should only contain dates, location/venue, the returning and withdrawing countries, and the results. This "inclusion of Israel" seems to be politically motivated. It does not make this a neutral article. Tonyb1989 (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, you are reading a reply I made to someone else regarding them not having consensus to make an article change. I have not told you to not make edits on the talk page, nor did I tell them that.

Regarding the second part, the lede is a summary of the article and the issue regarding Israel is a prominent focus of the article. Not only that, the 2019 article I linked to is an example of Israel participating despite a controversy with them participating, "The lead-up to the contest was met with controversy on multiple fronts, primarily on issues surrounding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict – this eventually led to demonstrations by interval act performer Madonna and Icelandic entrants Hatari during the broadcast of the final." In any case, to emphasis, the lede "should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." --Super Goku V (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The examples refer to countries actively excluded and events actively affecting the contest and the broadcast. Israel were not excluded and they participated as planned. Russia planned to enter but were excluded Belarus were planning on entering but were excluded. These examples you bring are not analogous here as Israel participated as planned and others were not allowed to participate.

Additionally including the second section regarding Madonna actually occurred during the broadcast of the event, so again not analogous to this situation. With Madonna's actions specifically violating the non-political nature of the event, during the broadcast.

The inclusion of events which were not directly about things which happened during the contest, e.g. interval act performances, or country exclusions, elevates using wikivoice, non event matters, drawing the focus away from the event which is the focus of the article and makes it about a single countries actions outside of the event.

I personally in the 2019 would remove "The lead-up to the contest was met with controversy on multiple fronts, primarily on issues surrounding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict – this eventually led to" as this is not actions which occurred directly relating to the contest it was outside of the contest and outside actors.

moving specifically to the examples provided:

Regarding the 1970 boycott example that related directly to countries entering the contest and that is directly related to the focus of that article. So again not an analogous example.

1. Regarding 2009 that relates to a specific withdrawal of country, so not analogous to this situation.
2. Regarding 2012 that concerns the venue construction for the event itself, but the Iran section on 'gay parade" should be jettisoned, which I have done so, so not analogous to this situation.
3. Regarding 2016 "Romania's disqualification due to unpaid debts" is directly related to the countries which can enter, so not analogous to this situation.
4. Regarding 2017 Russia Withdrew, which is an event affecting the participating countries and the event, so not analogous to this situation.
5. Regarding 2019 these are a country withdrawing and events which happened during the event broadcast, so not analogous to this situation.
6. Regarding 2021 that is participating countries the withdrawal of countries, so not analogous to this situation.
7. Regarding 2022 that is the exclusion of a country which had planned to participate, so not analogous to this situation.

In short none of the examples provided are analogous and do not support the current inclusion of Israel in the lede.

Finally the manual of style in the quote is misused as that section is trumped by WP:NPOV which clearly states "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." The push for inclusion is taking sides as it elevates matters which did not affect the number of countries or which countries entered and participated in the event. It does not relate to a matter which occurred during the broadcast, such as when an interval act in 2019 did what they did, and finally the contest proceeded as planned regardless of the issue trying to be included. All the countries performed as planned, all the voting and results happened as planned.

In short there is no reason for inclusion, all the examples are not analogous and do not support inclusion and the manual of style quote is inapplicable to this situation. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Picture, Tony. Both of you have misunderstood at least one part of my earlier reply, which was that I didn't cite those examples for specific reasons: To wrap this up so that I don't have to check every article, (...) All I have given was the examples from other articles in a similar topic. I have no idea if there is a controversy mentioned in one of the articles from 1971 to 2008 that is a direct comparison to this controversy, but that isn't the point at all. The main point is that when a controversy is significant enough, it gets mentioned in the lede following LEDE. It is never a guarantee that one controversy is the same as another controversy, but it is pretty clear that prominent controversies are mentioned in the lede.

Finally the manual of style in the quote is misused as that section is trumped by WP:NPOV To be brief here, policy doesn't really 'trump' guidelines; they are intended to be complimentary as noted at POLCON.

Regarding NPOV, I am struggling with your argument. You quote a sentence saying not to take a side, but explain the side, then go on to say that we should not explain it. (Not to mention that ACHIEVE NPOV says that the primary reason for removing content under NPOV would be if it is misinforming or misleading.)

If the argument was about the wording, then I would at least partly understand. But the argument is about removing a sentence summarizing part of the article for readers. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It is clear reading this discussion that the policy and guidelines of Wikipedia presented and the general consensus is to remove from the lede section. This has now been actioned. With a hidden point at this discussion for people who try to force reinsertion against the outcome of this discussion. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Picture, you don't have a consensus with just yourself and one other user when there are at least two other users opposed. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

No analogous examples as demonstrated indisputably above have been provided, additionally it cannot and must not be claimed that vote counting trumps actual Wikipedia policy. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The examples give are not 1:1 examples, but examples that prominent controversies are mentioned in the lede in other articles on the topic. Additionally, one of the main parts about Wikipedia is Consensus. If you want to try to change the wording to one that you believe is an improvement, then feel free to. But you do not have enough support to remove it outright at this time. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

They all relate to actual events which occurred affecting the entrants list or affecting the broadcasts, the Israel inclusion is neither of those so it is a POV push to make seem more prominent the inclusion of outside actors' events on the contest itself. Which is not what is done in the lede. The lede is for events which affect the number of entrants and things which happen during the broadcasts, not city council happenings, people holding banners and shouting outside the venue, etc. Additionally shouting "consensus" on this issue (the Middle East conflict) is like shouting fire in a theatre, a distraction and unhelpful. In short in this issue consensus can never be reached and other metrics must be used. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not a POV push to include the most prominent controversy in the lede. There is reliable sourcing that covers the issue over multiple weeks. Israel's participation was a big focus in articles about Eurovision. Some articles are about the issue entirely. I did show you an example where there was still a controversy where no one was disqualified; see the 2012 article with Iran. Additionally shouting "consensus" on this issue (the Middle East conflict) is like shouting fire in a theatre, a distraction and unhelpful. Picture, I am mentioning the consensus policy because you are said we were just voting above in your earlier reply and because you claimed you had a general consensus to remove it when you didn't. Also remember that you can't include editors who do not meet the 30-day, 500 edits requirement in any so-called consensus you claim. Okay. Then consensus is now against you three to one on removal. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this additionally needs to be one of the many things discussed at dispute resolution the comments have devolved into off topic comments trying to point score with quotes and !vote counting as opposed to discussing merits. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, I have not gotten off-topic before this point. We are still discussing the content dispute from my perspective. I am quoting you so that my sentences make more sense given that I am addressing multiple things in one reply. I will say that I am confused why you want to use DRN for multiple discussions at once along with how you were earlier saying that we needed to use a difference metric, but maybe it will be helpful in the end. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I am also in favor of including mention of israel in the lede. Yoyo360 (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Any meritorious reasons? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes : israel's inclusion has been by far the main focus this year in the days preceding the contest in several media. As said above, it has been the sole subject of several articles, and this went on for a while. In some countries (including my own France) it was literally debated on live TV whether Israel should be included. It has been the main controversy of this contest and its impact was evidently heavy. Yoyo360 (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the actual singing contest and Dutch disqualification disagrees with you on "israel's inclusion has been by far the main focus". Remember this is not a news site and volume of spilled ink by media outlets is not a good reason for inclusion. If you want to talk about the news ad infanitum then Winkinews is the place for you.

This 'It has been the main controversy of this contest' is also not true, that is a volume of media ink spilled POV of view. Media coverage does not equal degree of controversy. What is far more controversial is the disqualification of an act and that act being reported to the local police.

As for "In some countries (including my own France) it was literally debated on live TV whether Israel should be included". That is lovely for the media to do that but it is not encyclopedic in relation to the Eurovision song contest itself. That is just media being the media and belongs on a more relevant page. This is not the "Israel at the Eurovision Song Contest page" that is here and where most of the information about Israel belongs not the main page which needs to keep its focus and not become Israel in the Eurovision Song Contest 2024 lite page. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Having it in the lede doesn't make it the main focus. It just shows how prominent it was during the event, and it was. However, to ease the NPOV we could maybe just mention it as part of the other numerous controversies that surrounded the 2024 contest. Something in the spirit of "This contest was met by several controversies, most notably Israel participation, the Dutch entrant being disqualified and some misconduct allegations". That's the best I can find to try and compromise. Yoyo360 (talk) 06:28, 22 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.

Israel campaign for votes

From this, this or that, we see that Israeli government officials admit to have "campaigned" for votes in favorable audiences. Is that worth noting ? 2A01:CB14:8525:5900:DB2B:DFAF:8EEC:3041 (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Ceriumlanthanum (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Under no circumstances is this anything more than speculation and cruft. So no it cannot go in as this is the problem with wanting to include everything against the country which is the centre of attention at the moment. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Additionally are the sources even reliable? And do they even say what is claimed? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Ynet is usually rather reliable from what I know. RTVSLO is the national slovenian broadcaster but they seem to be citing ynet as well as the TImes of Israel. Yoyo360 (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Based on Google Translate, they are citing both ynet and the Times of Israel, but I am not finding in The Times' Eurovision articles where the quote came from. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

So first you accuse of "speculation and cruft", and then you wonder whether the source is actually reliable.

These news are concerning, thus deserve a special coverage in the article. Ceriumlanthanum (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Please do not comment on the contributor and always assume good faith. I see you created your account today to comment here but you must always assume good faith and being a new user is not free pass. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Picture, I don't see much of a problem. If the issue was with the specific words used, then you might need to be clearer. (Additionally, we do have an essay regarding Newbies.)

In any case, the sourcing seems to be a problem, though I am looking into what Yoyo360 has said. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Super Goku V It would seem that, in the rtvslo article, all quotes from Saranga are taken from Ynet. In the Times of Israel, found this quote : "The truth is that there was obviously an organized, dedicated effort by Israel supporters to give their votes to Golan in the face of intense threats and hatred, and it clearly drew votes from many who don’t otherwise tune into the Eurovision each year" in this article but that's more of an opinion statement than something factual. But Ynet quotes do exist... Yoyo360 (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Yoyo360: Whoops, sorry for the delay. Looking into this a bit more, I think I got Ynet at (ynet.co.il) confused with Ynet at (ynet.com), which is a different one. It looks like it would be fine to source to the Ynet you mentioned. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Picture, in the nicest way possible, you are stretching the limits of good faith - I already noted that you have a tendency to comment in a way that tries to minimise heavy criticism of Israel. A friendly reminder that NPOV works both ways, and your somewhat argumentative replies to every individual comment (not just stating your piece and letting others comment in kind) that either supports including information critical of Israel, or opposes including information kind to Israel (as in #A biased POV about Israel throughout the article), could very soon be seen as WP:BLUDGEONING. Your contributions to discussion are appreciated, but let's keep it open.

FWIW, up to "2022", I wholeheartedly agree with your (standalone) comment currently at the bottom of this section. Kingsif (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I would say so — IмSтevan ^talk 17:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Is that a !vote for inclusion or exclusion? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This should definitely be included. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 21:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this information? and how does it rise to the level of inclusion? Does it break any rules or is it just disliked and frowned upon? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It might be worth noting, but the sources are not the best. If there are any sources that are generally reliable, then we could consider adding it. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This all seems to be that it was not from the Israeli delegation the self but from people who tuned in specifically to support Israel and got others to do so. Which is not worth including. It is potentially no different to previous years people have been fired up by outside events to tune in. A recent example being Ukraine in 2022. So I think inclusion is POV to push that Israel somehow acted nefariously which is unsupported, from what I have seen, There is no evidence that I have seen which says rules were broken. This feels a lot like people looking to fill column inches and another story of the big bad Israel does that nicely. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Include - It's relevant, it's well sourced (Ynet), and the source is pretty direct - "The support Golan received from the European audience was preceded by a campaign by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the government publicity office for Eurovision fans, in which the Israeli representative addressed them in French, Italian, Spanish, German, Czech, Latvian, Estonian, Albanian, Georgian and English - and asked them to vote for her. The campaign states that "in view of the wave of hatred and Muslim demonstrations in Malmö, a counter-reaction of the silent majority is taking place."" (via google translate). A government ministry addressing people in different languages instructing people to vote based on political aims is relevant. Bugghost🎤:🐛👻 09:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Gonna need better sourcing as described above. Also this would if sourceable better, better be included on the Israel subpage here. It feels very much like singling out one country where other countries are well known to have done this. also there has not been any suggestion rules have been broken. Have any rules been broken? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Picture - I am aware of your opinions because this is the seventh comment you have posted in this section. Please let people voice their own opinions without repeating your own. You are bludgeoning. Bugghost🎤:🐛👻 15:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The number of comments by one user is irrelevant please focus on the context. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Ynet is a reliable source and they cited someone from the government, and the whole thing has been recited by another reliable broadcaster (RTVSLO). I ca also add Bilbao Hiria and El Díario who released articles earlier today. So what now? Yoyo360 (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Have any Eurovision rules been broken? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Rules broken or not, that's irrelevant. The israeli government admitted to campaigning for political purposes and reliable sources have been found. Yoyo360 (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes rules broken does matter or it’s not notable for this article as inclusion is pov pushing. This a Eurovision article not an analysis and inclusion of everything Israel did at Eurovision. This is not a regurgitation and inclusion of news reports people like. There must be some real reason for inclusion, such as the actions broke Eurovision rules.

So I ask again, have any rules been broken? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Under the "Non-political Event" section of the contest rules, "[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." Moreover, in 2017, the EBU made a statement (which applies to future editions as well) that any form of political propaganda during the event or any political content included in the songs are prohibited. See sources here and here. F1xesc (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I also thought that a mentionig this is relevant in the article of this year's ESC specifically. Amidst a war, a government of a participating country confirms that they campaigned for vote collection, when it is known that a large amount of public votes in the show can be interpreted as public support (e.g. see the situation with Ukraine 2022). Piccco (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Include per comments made above; indeed, there seem to be several reliable sources discussing this incident, so a mention seems warranted. Piccco (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not a news site and Israel are not this articles focus. Simply including something in print does not warrant inclusion per se. The information must meet wikipedias inclusion criteria. As o can see this does not break Eurovision and its inclusion could easily be seen as POV pushing to try and somehow make the votes Israel got lesser or tainted and wikivoice must not do that. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

No one said that this should become the main focus of the article! I (and I think everyone else) simply thought that this is worth including in a brief sentence. Piccco (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

There is an entire section on what you have complained about me removing. Do we need "the inclusion of Israel" paragraph on the top page? and an example of the outside view of this article by another user [3]. I suggest not making assumptions, and broad claims before you are abreast of them all. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember complaining about you removing anything; we barely had any interactions in this talkpage prior to that. In my reply above, I was just referring to the vote campaign, which is the subject of this section, and not to Israel participation in general. Piccco (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

To your point "simply thought that this is worth including in a brief sentence" - Yes, but why is it relevant to this article? Beyond simply being nice to have, it has to have encyclopedic content and not just be a news story some users like. So I ask a third time do the claimed actions of Israel break any Eurovision rules? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I still believe that this information is relevant to this article, especially when it's not just "claims", but we have high quality sources confirming it. Government involvement in Eurovision seems to me like an incident of major importance, especially in 2024. Excuse me if I'm wrong, but the argument you present for exclusion seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Piccco (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

As a consensus seems to have been reached, could someone add the info to the article? Yoyo360 (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Late edit, but I found this other article, in French, also mentioning the communication campaign for votes. Yoyo360 (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Could someone? We've been talking about this for more than a week now and the incident is nowhere to be found Ceriumlanthanum (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

i think this belongs best after the RfC below as once that has concluded as other mentions of Israel can be settled. let's not put inflaming actions before the discussions. This needs to be done in the least disruptive and inflammatory way possible. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no need for a RfC as you're the only opposing voice here. All others have expressed themselves in favor of inclusion. Yoyo360 (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not counting votes. Israel is contentious and the more discussions on Israel the better. let's not get personal here, let's remain objective, and try and act in a way which is least inflammatory. The topic of Israel and the stuff surrounding Israel has burned a lot of people and lets not continue this cycle of inflamatory additions and reversions. Lets allow one RfC on Israel to conclude before shoving more Israel in the article. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not getting personal. And we literally cannot be objective because this is a discussion where we share opinions, subjective by definition. This is a discussion, and the vote as of now counts 7 for and only one against. This is already good enough in my opinion. Beside the RfC is on a different topic. Yoyo360 (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok it is clear a measured and non-inflammatory approach is not welcome here I think a disengage with those pushing that is needed. Consider this to be the notice I am not going to interact with you. That does though not mean I will not interact on the topics, just not with specific users. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

You clearly are getting worked up for nothing. I have at no point been discourteous or "inflammatory"... Yoyo360 (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

A biased POV about Israel throughout the article

Particularly this one is striking: "there was targeted online hate directed towards the Israeli entrant, Eden Golan, throughout the contest."

No. The hate was not directed towards the singer. There was a discontent regarding the inclusion of Israel in the contest due to the well-known reasons. The source of this alleged hate is... a descrpition of an interview Martin Österdahl gave. This sentence should be rephrased or removed completely. Ceriumlanthanum (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable non-depreciated source to back up what you are saying as the current sentence is properly sourced. Otherwise it is the realms of original research. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

What Mr Österdahl claims doesn't prove anything. It is just his opinion. This is why I raised concern about neutrality of this particular sentence. It's clearly biased, and, in addition, it is not supported by a reliable source.

If Österdahl's words are used as reference to the "hate towards the entrant", we might as well cite Jehoshua Kaufman's opinion, i.e., "Golan was coming to very hateful surroundings" (vía [4]).

This still doesn't mean there was hate directed at the singer. There are countless publications about why the protests were being held and why, in the first place, (social) media outrage was sparked. Ceriumlanthanum (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps using in-line attribution ("Österdahl said...") is a good compromise here? Kingsif (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Ceriumlanthanum (talk) 11:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Can someone do something about it?

Why is everything about Israel described in such a biased way? Another example: "Spanish reporter was allegedly harassed by Israeli media"? Allegedly??? Why is this word there? Ceriumlanthanum (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This is because wikivoice cannot make affirmative claims and use that to assert specific matters. The claims are just that claims, the allegations are just that allegations. They are not proved and wikivoice is not to take a position that claims by one side are more or less valid than the other in wikivoice. It is not for side taking or misuse of wikivoice. There is no so-called “described in a biased way” it is standard neutral wording and preventing misuse of wikivoice. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

"Eurovision Street"

Is there a reason why Eurovision Village is presented without quotes here while "Eurovision Street" is? Is one term that much more established than the other?

A Eurovision Village was created in Folkets Park [sv]. It hosted performances by contest participants[c] and local artists, as well as screenings of the live shows for the general public. A "Eurovision Street" was established on Friisgatan [sv], stretching from Triangeln station to the Eurovision Village in Folkets Park.
AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Eurovision Villages were already a thing in previous editions, while (as far as I know) Eurovision Street appears to be a new Malmö exclusive. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Use of weasel word in incidents and controversies section

The introduction uses blatant weasel words which must be avoided “deemed by some publications and observers…particularly controversial edition”

The wording is not only poor but is being used to give an undue impression of things it is not.

Either the text is just flat removed or alternative wording from named non opinion piece sources is used instead. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't fully agree with some of this, but the words are a problem. Currently there is some attribution for part of the sentence, but there is no point to the sources without a proper sentence and I am struggling to figure out a way to rewrite the line. Pinging Kingsif and Pdhadam for input. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest finding additional English-language sources that comment on the controversies, and extract quotes accordingly from there. Preferably seek out non-ESCfanmedia sources. For instance:

"Meanwhile, with complaints and accusations flying, the atmosphere backstage was said to have been on a knife-edge." / "Draw the camera back from its tight crop on the gritted-teeth performances and Eurovision 2024 arrives under the darkest shadow of the contest’s entire history." (https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/eurovision/eurovision-2024-review-israel-nemo-winner-b2543567.html)

"Many are questioning Eurovision’s future." (https://theconversation.com/boycotts-protests-harassment-eurovisions-future-is-on-the-line-after-its-most-controversial-year-yet-229369) Pdhadam (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Concur with Pdhadam Kingsif (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I did find some potential sources. such as CNN and The Guardian, and Vanity Fair, but it looks like the issue has been resolved by removing part of the line. Given the circumstances, that is likely for the best. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2024

2604:3D09:CD8B:8B00:84BE:F3E0:F9EC:1E41 (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. AlexandraAVX (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 June 2024

The starting number for Switzerland (which is 21) should be written in bold. Newrafal04 (talk) 09:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for catching it. CeolAnGhra (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Austria Steadycam failure in the Grand Final.

Has anyone found any news source articles about the Austrian entry's camera malfunction in the grand final? I've seen suggestions that the battery died and the system automatically changed cameras, which in result meant that Austria lost the dance break scene in the finals. Though, these are not reliable sources in determining what happened.

Would this also be considered a controversy? In previous years, any operator-error or set error incidents have been considered controversies, or in some threads as "accidents." Had the dance break not been essentially skipped, the possibility of ranking higher (or lower) may be influential. Worth including? HSBERG (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

This may be true, but in order for it to be included in the article it needs to have news coverage from a couple of reliable sources. If you can find some then it might be able to be included. BugGhost🪲👻 09:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Understandable,

I know in very few cases youtube would be an acceptable resource, but would the VOD directly from the contest hosted on youtube serve as evidence enough? Alternatively, a video shared by the artist themselves?

In the past, it looks like technical issues (even as "minor" as this one) have been noted, so I'm hoping I'm contributing enough here baha. I also don't know the bias/reliability of this source since it looks a little tabloid-y, but would it also be considered acceptable? I'm still new to wikipedia so I'm studying my rules. :-) HSBERG (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand your points, and those videos seem seem to prove that it happened - the problem is that wikipedia needs reliable sources to establish not just that it happened, but also that it's an worthwhile thing to include. The tz.de article might not be enough to establish it's notability (in my opinion anyway - other editors might disagree). Including small things like this could make this article very long - and it's already probably too long, as there's lots of other aspects that got a lot of media attention. BugGhost🪲👻 13:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I got an error that just says "This video is not available" and nothing else, but I am in the US. Does the Eurovision Song Contest stream actually show it cutting out during the song? --Super Goku V (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it is only available in European nations I believe of the livestream on Youtube for whatever reason(s). However, it may be available on other European nation channels such as this - https://www.svtplay.se/eurovision-song-contest. I also live in the United States and apparently Svtplay doesn't have any country restrictions on it as far as I'm aware of. Soafy234 (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, an embarrassing error; I could see it potentially having a brief mention in the article, but as BugGhost has correctly stated, we would need a couple of good sources reporting on it, in order to establish notability. Piccco (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2024

Annika Lundin should be added as commentator/audio descriptor on SVT24 in the Broadcasts section. LivLovisa (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you clarify where it appears on that page? I didn't see it, but I am certain I am missing it. Additionally, the page implies that it will only be available until November 7th. Is there another source available in case we need it as a backup? --Super Goku V (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It only appears in the broadcast, not in any writing as far as I am aware. LivLovisa (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Svensk mediedatabas has the program archived, but it's only available for research (though that includes 'writers and journalists' and university students so it could be possible for some wiki contributors to access). AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

(To both) I guess with both of these facts, it is fine to include. A source can be difficult to verify, but as long as it can be, then it is usable. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done --AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done This has now been removed as it was added incorrectly (as a sign language interpreter rather than audio description). The reference you provided also does not list Annika Lundin anywhere within it, so we cannot add this to the table. Additionally audio description is generally outside of the realms of inclusion for these tables, as it's not commentary per se. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Is it never stated in the broadcast? If it's outside the usually included area then it shouldn't be included either way but as far as I know there's no rule against using video as a source. AlexandraAVX (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The database source doesn't name Lundin? Then I guess I misunderstood what the connection was to inclusion. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The database is a permanent archive of the broadcast, if the broadcast unambiguously states that Lundin did the audio description then from my understanding it can be used. AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Video/audio contest would be suitable as a reference, however I've listened to the first couple of minutes of the broadcast, which is normally where you would expect that any introductions would be made, and the descriptor does not mention their name. Unless it is included elsewhere in the broadcast then unfortunately we can't use this reference as requested, and a different reference would be required. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Since this is disputed, I'm setting this to answered=yes for now to get it out of the queue. Will need a proper consensus to implement this edit, I think. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

References