Talk:Israel in the Eurovision Song Contest 2024

Dec 11 RVs

@user:IvanScrooge98, with regard to this RV: Special:Diff/1189362266... A lot may be discussed to who and what is responsible and why. We might even not be in agreement to who is the exact responsible, and that's OK too. But still, this is not the article to do it. The linked article is. Please use an WP:NPOV phrasing here, and for the least, follow what the linked article says. TaBaZzz (talk) 11:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@טבעת-זרם: I can imagine we may disagree. But the Eurovisionfun article mentions the reasons cited by human rights activists, who blame Israel for breaking international law; this may very well be understood as humanitarian law. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure personally how the current wording doesn't respect a neutral point of view. The current wording linking to the article on the 2023 Gaza humanitarian crisis I believe already covers the established facts in a respectful way, and personally I do detect any bias in that wording. The very first sentence on the target article states that the crisis is a result of the war, that is an established fact, and apart from substituting certain phrases in this article, which are supported by the reference provided, I don't really see a problem with the wording as is. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Sims2aholic8: "The very first sentence on the target article states that the crisis is a result of the war". This should be the phrasing here too. TaBaZzz (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The point is that people who have raised objections to Israel’s participation did so because the Israeli offensive is the cause of the crisis. Not just the war. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

This is not what you reverted the article into. TaBaZzz (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean it isn’t? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

You didn’t RV into “People who have raised objections to Israel’s participation did so because…” TaBaZzz (talk) 09:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

It would sound too redundant in my opinion. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

With the spirit of the wiki together we will succeed. TaBaZzz (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

“We” will succeed in what? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

In complying with policies, keeping NPOV, and not sound too redundant. TaBaZzz (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make was that the current wording already establishes a neutral point of view and doesn't need to be changed. "The ongoing humanitarian crisis resulting from the Israeli retaliatory operations in the Gaza Strip since October 2023" I believe to be a neutral statement because those are the established facts of the situation. That sentence doesn't lay blame one way or the other, it merely states what the situation is at present. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@user:IvanScrooge98, you are edit-warring here, and stepping back from what you've already agreed on. TaBaZzz (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I never agreed on anything. That reply didn’t mean I was ok with changing the wording. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

You stated your opinion. How can you not agree with yourself? TaBaZzz (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know what kind of game you’re trying to play but I never said anywhere that I agreed on that specific wording. Period. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

This note is unconstructive, and comes as an addition to edit-warring. Please @user:IvanScrooge98, let's work on this together to build an NPOV and balanced article. TaBaZzz (talk) 09:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Out of three users taking part in the discussion, two of us were okay with keeping the wording as it was. Now, I was waiting for someone else to join, or for some new prompt in the discussion; you changed the wording without consensus and tried to convince me I agreed – I wouldn’t call that constructive either. And that’s why I reacted this way, which I apologize for but still. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

But still you repeatedly revert tothe exact same text that violates policy and states opinions as facts (WP:wikivoice). Please avoid reverting to the violating text and let’s work together to phrase an NPOV, consensual, fair and balanced text. TaBaZzz (talk) 09:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@טבעת-זרם: Of the users who have taken part in this discussion only you believe that there is a violation here. Additionally you have not specified in this conversation which part of the sentence you believe violates policy or is "opinion" versus "fact". Although Wikipedia is not a democracy, and therefore we shouldn't be !voting on what is or isn't included, when two users have been consistent in this discussion that they do not see a violation in policy or with NPOV, and when one user fails to engage with the discussion beyond saying that there is a violation without actually stating how, then agreeing on a course of action which satisfies everyone is highly unlikely. Please engage with us constructively and explicitly state where you believe the violation is and then perhaps we can agree on a common approach that can resolve this issue. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Where exactly lies the opinion in stating that Israel is responsible for the humanitarian crisis? One may have an opinion on whether the operations were deliberate or inevitable, for example. But not on the fact that they are the very cause of the crisis. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Exactly there!

• "Hamas is to blame for the plight of Palestinians in Gaza". The Guardian. October 19, 2023. Retrieved December 27, 2023.
• Bert Stephens (October 15, 2023). "Hamas Bears the Blame for Every Death in This War". The New York Times. Retrieved December 27, 2023.
• Noah Beck (October 12, 2023). "Blame Hamas for civilian suffering in Gaza". Retrieved December 27, 2023.

TaBaZzz (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Every one of those links is to an opinion piece, which is inherently not NPOV and fall under WP:PRIMARY, and even within these opinion pieces the authors specify that the ensuing humanitarian crisis would not be happening without the involvement of the Israeli state or the IDF following the Hamas attacks on October 7, i.e. in retaliation. Again this goes back to what IvanScrooge98 stated in his post, that nothing about the current wording assigns blame or morality on whether the operations are right or wrong, it's just a statement of fact that there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza as a result of the current activities by the Israeli state/IDF in that territory. Whether it is justified or not is not within the scope of this article, what is relevant here is that we are specifying in a NPOV that there has been criticism from some quarters in relation to Israel's participation in Eurovision 2024. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Hamas is not the one dropping bombs all over Gaza and refusing to allow humanitarian aid into the Strip; the IDF is. These are the facts. Linking to articles expressing the opinion that Hamas is to blame for the worsening of the situation will not change that. This is the last thing I will say, Sims2aholic8 has already been very clear. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

wp:notaforum. TaBaZzz (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The sources-content discuss war and decades-conflict, 2-sided as its crisis, then attribute opinions, mostly focus on Israel-side by virtue of Eurovision scope still including neutrals & pros for Israel, and broadcasters discussing issue of ESC participation during war. The war article gives this full picture + its sub-headers + ad-hoc sources and [[Israeli operations]]; all delve to facts (+opinions) including Hamas' humanitarian causes aand breaking humanitarian law in preparing for the war and during the war. There isn't just 1-side-resulting. "Ongoing","Resulting from Retaliatory'" + article's lead "war impacted..." - reinforces this NPOV: "Ongoing [[war]]-Israel's operations led to criticism-defense".

Same for Russia: mentioned as "country in war" and its own case; Iceland and Finland organizations/broadcasters compare while other broadcasters' neutral or supportive stance for Israel's inclusion (nod to Finland+Denmark), reinforces no relation to their Russia's 2022 exclusion. + Sources used repeatedly echo EBU's Russian broadcaster violations while "Israel's complies". So here too, complex, and even contrary sourced. And per the above paragraph, a Finland's NF singer saying he talks only about Israel because Hamas doesn't partake in Eurovision. An already used source at the top says "some compared to Russia" so instead added there. אומנות (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the last part of your intervention sums it up pretty well: Hamas does not take part in Eurovision. These articles do not deal with the war but with Israel's participation in the contest – that is why criticism to/support of Israel's participation are the only relevant things to focus on. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Information overload?

When compared to the coverage of the controversies of the 2019 contest (held in Israel), the amount of coverage given to those of Israel's 2024 participation may borderline on excessive in my view, especially as most of the relevant broadcasters have yet to openly call for Israel to be removed like Russia in 2022. At some point all of the information presented here will have to be condensed, otherwise WP:WEIGHT may be breached. Pdhadam (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I was the one undoing your edits that tried to summarize, so here I am – sorry for not noticing this discussion until now. I agree that of course this will be too much information over time, but since the situation is still very unclear for the moment I think we should wait a little longer before deciding what goes in an what goes out. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Personally I believe that the opposite method should be utilised, i.e. only including what is necessary in summary style and then building upon it as things continue to progress. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we shouldn't be trying to "keep up" with news sites or add every single bit of information related to this topic just because it's a topic of conversation within Eurovision circles. Doing so makes us fall into the "recentism" trap that we sometimes see across Wikipedia and including Eurovision articles when notability isn't particularly proven at this point. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Points well made. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the need to reduce, and removed again, Ireland's petition-content, as @Pdhadam: removed. It currently failed to show either its organizers opinion-notability nor multiple sources covering the petition-content; and small signatures/emails number. UK's 2024 entrant (with pointing just "protested", also for "UK 2024" article) and Israel's embassy actually looked notable (and as other countries articles link here). Sources also state "activists" and artists/industry figures (not "human rights"; only Iceland's BDS' notable movement); also disagreed by "Pdhadam" (who edited "pro-Palestinians"). NPOV looks simply: "Notable figures and activists" (including for defending Israel). Finland's current participation, "monitoring"... makes the "ongoing UMK" irrelevant, while valuable for "Finland 2024". Iceland 2019-Izhar (a former entrant) "propaganda"..."antisemitism", seem to just add sided views. ? I suggest removing those. אומנות (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

edit summaries

IvanScrooge98, could you please use edit summaries? They're as important as the edits. Valereee (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. I happen to rush especially for large edits. I’ll try to summarize whenever I can. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The goal should be an edit summary on every edit. When you don't use edit summaries, someone will likely feel they have to go check what you've done. That's a waste of the other editor's time. You can enable a reminder that you haven't included an edit summary at Preferences>Editing>Editor, which is helpful in developing the habit. Valereee (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

edit summaries: how to

IvanScrooge98, and this edit summary is not okay at a contentious article. Please when reverting, instead of making your arguments in an edit summary, come to the talk page and open a section discussing where the consensus for inclusion has been developed. Please immediately stop using edit summaries as discussion, that's not what they're for. Valereee (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

This happened long after a discussion was opened by the same user who made the previous edit ignoring the consensus. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98, you should open a section and point to that consensus. FTR, what consensus are you pointing to? I'm just seeing bickering there. Valereee (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

One single user has opposed a certain wording and has tried to change it more than once even after a discussion had been opened. So far he is the only one opposing it. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Policy violations by IvanScrooge98 are still in the article. User refused to discuss. User reverted several different suggestions to improve the article. User even refused to the mere cooperation in spirit of wiki. TaBaZzz (talk) 08:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

For the last time, you are the only one who has seen policy violations in that wording. I have explained my position and there has been a discussion which you decided to ignore. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

You have failed to point out what policies are actually in violation however. If you'd like to bring in an administrator to settle this then that option is available, however between myself and Ivan we do not see any policy violations, and therefore no reason to change the current text, which is supported by references provided. Regarding your claim that there has been a refusal to discuss, please refer back to #Dec 11 RVs where there has been quite a lot of discussion on this matter. Additionally, you cannot force someone to "[cooperate] in [the] spirit of wiki" when you yourself have failed to engage with us in a positive manner, especially when the sum of your contributions on this talk page on this matter can be boiled down to "I don't like this wording, change it". I have not see any attempt to reach a compromise on your part, something which I believe the edit histories and this talk page will corroborate: e.g. your last edit in fact removed a lot of relevant information and links to related articles, therefore leading to a potentially skewed POV and which could lead to the reader not having access to the full information available on Wikipedia. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't wish to discuss violations but simply to improve collaboration: I've seen for several days and edit history, and read through all 22 "calls for exclusion" sources, and per other war articles and sources brought here with facts about the other side's causes-ongoings (besides opinions), it shows problems. Especially Israel's sole resulting" and in a wikivoice, that's the main issue. And when the content and sources more so discuss the whole conflict anyway; and most Russia passing mentions+Ireland's petition content. Both separately reverted-removed by "@טבעת-זרם:" and "Pdhadam", for BRD and WP:ONUS; when there was 1 vs 1 editor.    I don't know if the later-2 vs 1 editor counts consensus but anyway the main thing is to resolve this and I also disagree.    @IvanScrooge98:, most important for me, your main-2024 ESC article's older comments (your personal views) are hurtful. Me and others also suffer and know victims, so I have many war-views too but keep them. I appreciate your work for years and love Italy, so this further affects me. I ask you be mindful so I can also discuss here with a nice feel.    I posted on the "#11 December" and the "Information overload" above, for rephrasing the article's "calls for" top-paragraph, added sourced-Russia comparisons per figures, and support a brief UK mention. If still disagreements/reverts on something, and no further ideas, we can RfC or another way to invite more ideas and views. אומנות (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry if any of my comments felt insensible, but I also don’t recall making any particular statements when editing the main article; if you could indicate those to me it would be helpful. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Ivan... first, thank you, deeply, for replying in peace, even you can't recall what comments. I can't describe how the overall situation and other war stuff I feel from editors - how it feels... so thanks. I'm overwhelmed now as I worked for several days on explaining all my views in the 3 threads above and editing and looking through all sources you added, broke my head to find how to try slightly rephrasing the opening, mostly explain here why I found it so problematic, and reach something which hopefully can at least progress work towards agreement for the existing material; and while this issue keeps growing in the media... also admittedly I was stressed from harsh replies from whoever, after editing. I didn't want to get into details here for what comments I meant, to not make it further an issue here. So I just need a bit of a break now from Wikipedia... so I will write on your talk page what I meant and further, in like 2 days, in the meantime also others may edit-comment on the threads above. Is that okay with you that I'll write on your talk soon? אומנות (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

It’s okay, no rush! I simply wanted to understand because sometimes I happen to make pretty rough comments – out of stress too – and overtime I forget about them. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Ivan אומנות (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Historical Precedence Section

Okay, I don't want to get into an edit war about that section, but it seems like a pretty obvious violation of WP:SYNTH to include that. There are no sources, at least that currently exist on the page, that specifically link calls for Israel being excluded to Iceland's actions in 2019.The sources there only discuss, as you'd expect given that they were written in 2019, the fact that Iceland was fined. 22090912l (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Comparisons with the Russian case have been made in many of the sources used, and the strikingly different treatment of the two countries has drawn media attention everywhere. As for the 2019 fine to Iceland, I think it was also brought up at least one of the ones cited above but I’ll have to read them again. These parts were included in the country-dedicated paragraphs before they became too long and were moved below, hence the current situation. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair, I hadn't analysed the sources well enough before. I do think that some of the earlier material and sources from the "calls for exclusion" section should be brought down to the "historical precedence" section, for one thing because I maintain that the historical precedence section, currently without the earlier sources linking Iceland's actions to Israel, violates synth. Secondly, I think that that section is a bit barren at the moment and could use more detail. 22090912l (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98, if they are "on sources", please add the sources to the section. Currently the refs at that section were all written before the war and can't be considered sources because they don't (and can't) make the claimed comparison. TaBaZzz (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You are right, I will review the sources and add them below in these days. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98 in this revert: special:diff/1207466548 you have also added the claim that the calls are increasing, which is still unsourced. Please provide a source for it. TaBaZzz (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Worked on the sources. As you can see there is plenty citing the Russian exclusion. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

User:22090912l does not have ECP and should not be editing about the conflict. Doug Weller talk 11:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)