Talk:Turkvision Song Contest

Bosnia joins

http://www.novinite.com/articles/154029/Bosnia+Snubs+Eurovision,+Joins+Turkvision Xinxaa (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Turkvision 2013. It is unclear if Bosnia are taking part. We've had a member of the Wikipedia Translation Team verify a source, which they deem to be unreliable. Wesley Mᴥuse 23:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Article Title

I went over to WP:ENG and it says that "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources". So far, our main sources Eurovoix and Turkvision.info both call this the "Turkvision Song Contest" and not "Türkvizyon". Should the page be moved there instead? Mr. Gerbear|Talk 18:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Only just noticed this. I'd support such a move as it does make sense to use English context on English Wikipedia. Wes Mᴥuse 17:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Flags of Chinese subdivisions

China does not use flags to represent national subdivisions. Per the national constitution, it is forbidden for provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities to create and use their own flag. Using unofficial flags to represent Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang constitutes original research. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It does not constitute original research if the event organisers use different flags, which can easily be verified from official sources - if something is verified, then it is not original research. A national constitution, that forbids any provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities to create and use their own flag, does not bear any affect on this article. Wes Mᴥuse 03:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Well in that case, it's an WP:NPOV issue involving a POV source. you cannot have this page exist as a WP:POVFORK which differs from standard conventions elsewhere on Wikipedia. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately the only POV is your own. In the run-up to the contest there were plenty of sources that verified different flags used for the regional areas. That does not constitute WP:NPOV, it does however confirm verifiability. One only need to see the 4th image from the official website to see that they use regional flags. If you have an issue with that, then perhaps taking the matter to the organisers and informing them that they are breaking national constitutional laws may be the next step forward. Unfortunately, by you altering the article is deferring away from verified sources, and thus making your actions more original and POV pushing. Wes Mᴥuse 04:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

User Benlisquare, plz see the official trailer of the contest maked by the organizators of Turkvizyon. ← Alejandro de Grande ^talk 04:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Alejandro for providing that trailer link. I knew there was one somewhere and couldn't find it. Benlisquare should remember that when one's edits gets reverted, that they must then engaged in the "bold revert discuss" cycle. Not a "bold revert, revert again because I want to, and then accuse editor's of POV" cycle. Wes Mᴥuse 04:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not very nice of you to accuse me of such. Keep in mind that you were the one who made a revert whilst leaving no edit summary. You have the responsibility and the obligation to explain what you are doing, I don't read minds. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

And as I have already explained to you once, I had written an edit summary. Why it didn't save the text is unknown to me. I can not be blamed if a technical glitch was cause of an edit summary going blank. Whatever happened to assuming good faith? Wes Mᴥuse 04:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

To further clarify. This is not a WP:NPOV issue involving a POV source. The source itself is from the official website, thus making it reliable which is one of the core policies for Wikipedia,and therefore a source is not POV. To accuse the fact that I reverted the article back to the version which is based on the reliable source, does not constitute WP:POVFORK. However, the fact that Benlisquare keeps reverting the article to their own version based on what they say is "a national constitutional law" makes their actions extremely WP:POVFORK. What we do have here is one editor pushing their POV based on a "national constitution, that forbids provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities to create and use their own flag". Whilst we have reliable sources which show regional flags being used. As we're to maintain a neutral perspective within an article, whilst sticking to what is verifiable by reliable sources, then ultimately the official sources (which show different flags) out-trump the POV that is being pushed forward. As there are also no conventions or policies within Wikipedia that explicitly state regional flags of China are forbidden within articles, then the current version that uses such flags takes presidency. Wes Mᴥuse 04:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Are there any other pages on Wikipedia which follow the same flag conventions as this page? You cannot have this page follow a certain standard, and have all other pages follow a different one. This page is the only page on Wikipedia which uses the flag of the East Turkestan Independence Movement to represent Xinjiang as a geographic entity, and the only page which uses the flag of the Inner Mongolian People's Party to represent Inner Mongolia. You cannot use the flags of secessionist movements as if they were the official flags of a region, regardless of what the sources relating to the Song Contest use, as this takes an undue and WP:FRINGE POV stance. There are also sources out there which state that the earth is flat, that Jews are not human, and that the Armenian genocide never happened; this does not mean that these fringe POVs are given leeway on Wikipedia. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

You say that we "cannot use the flags of secessionist movements as if they were the official flags of a region, regardless of what the sources relating to the Song Contest use". I'll think you'll find that we can and that we have, and all in accordance to the manual of style guidance on subnational flags, which states that "subnational flags (regions, cities, etc.) should generally be used only when directly relevant to the article". Considering that we are using the sources which verify the usage of these particular flags, then we are abiding to a lot more stricter core policies (such as WP:V and WP:RS) which heavily outweigh and out-trump your argument of WP:NPOV of 2 to 1. It is clear that you're not getting anywhere with your POV-pushing, as there are sources being used that dismiss your POV as purely politically-based on your part. If you strongly feel the flags are incorrect, then take the matter up with the event organisers and inform them that they are breaking Chinese laws by allowing the use of these flags, and force them to change their sources to show different flags. That is the only way that you'd now get this article to change. Otherwise you're just going to make yourself look like a disruptive editor. Oh and please don't hassle me on my talk page, the discussion is taking place here not over there where not everyone will see it. Wes Mᴥuse 15:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

No one is "hassling you", and this is a very inappropriate edit summary, having a different opinion hardly makes one an "idiot". Consider toning down the hostility a bit and remaining WP:CIVIL.

Do you not see the POV issues involved with using flags associated with political organizations to represent subdivisions? If a source used a swastika flag for Germany, and the Black Banner of Jihad for Afghanistan, would that be acceptable too? This no longer has anything to do with Chinese law, stop bringing that up as an ad hominem against me with the intention of accusing me of pushing a partisan POV. Do you even read the policy pages that you keep linking me?

• Per WP:RS, partisan sources are to be used with caution: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective... While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context."
• In addition, per WP:V: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources; challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest; ...claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community".

Now, address my points, don't address me. --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually you did hassle me, by carrying the debate onto my talk page (where people who may be visiting this talk area would not see it), rather than in the more appropriate talk page which is this one that we are on at the moment (where people visiting would see it). How I chose to handle my own talk page area is of my choice, not yours. Do I or anyone else tell you how to handle your talk page? And don't tell me to tone down, there is no hostility here, apart from on your part of course. And if one wishes to tell me to be civil, then perhaps one should also follow one's own advice and also be civil to people, rather than pushy and biting.

Another editor above has also dismissed your case, so your case is becoming more a wasted argument than a productive debate.

As for bringing up Chinese law. It was you who brought it up first, not I. I was merely pointing out that your stance on the Chinese national constitution does not bear weight on this article. Purely for the fact that we have used the flags because they are used on the official website for depicting those regions. And thus we are able to verify their usage, and reason for their usage on this article. Which in turn means we are abiding to Wikipedia policies by keeping the article neutral and accurate based on what the sources state. Time to drop this and find something else to do. Because this article will never be changed until there are sources regarding the contest that explicitly show a different flag being used. So your argument is running at a loss. Wes Mᴥuse 17:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The Turkvizyon Song Contest article should follow Turkvizyon’s classification and flag representation of its contestants. If there are reliable sources criticizing this classification and representation, or news reports of such criticism, by all means include cited criticism in the article. See, for example, the flag controversy in South_Carolina#20th_century_and_beyond.
I don’t see how WP:POVFORK applies. Is there another article on the Turkvizyon Song Contest advocating a different POV that this article was spun off from?--Wikimedes (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought that POVFORK didn't apply here. Thank you Wikimedes for clarifying that for me. This is the mother article, so to speak, for the contest itself, explain its origins etc. A televised event is held every year, and the respective articles covering each annual contest is created. But this is the main one, similar to Eurovision Song Contest has a main "mother" article. Wes Mᴥuse 23:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

If this contest uses certain flags to represent these regions, then I don't see an issue with including these flags on this page. While there may be a law in China regarding prohibition of separate flags, I don't think it should interfere if there are sources that show these flags are being used in this competition. Pickette (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Eligibility and the Participants' Table

There are no sources that say all these territories that have not participated, or attempted to participate, are eligible to enter Türkvizyon. It's against WP:CRYSTAL and WP:ORIG to assume that they are, in the first place. Unless others can show me specific guidelines for what regions can participate, I shall take all the unreferenced countries off the table.

Besides, standards should reflect the article on the Eurovision Song Contest, at least. The participation table does not list countries who have never participated, nor countries that are eligible, even if the EBU has a much stricter standard for inclusion. If "has a considerable Turkic population" is TRT's rule, this could mean literally all of Europe, and the United States and Canada, at least. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 08:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There was a source at one point, who removed it? I seem to recall the Turkvizyon eligibility was based on something (an image showing all eligible flags) via the official website. I know the list for JESC has been improved (upon consultation), as previously it housed separate tables for those who had participated at least once, and another section for those who were eligible (based on the EBU source) but had yet to participate. Merging the 2 sections together made more sense, as they were about the same thing, and merging the content together shown the entire EBU active members who had participated at least once alongside those who had yet to do so. An all-in-one view so to speak. The ABU lists do the same, as there are sources for eligibility. The ESC list however would not be as easy to merge, as there is a section for unsuccessful participation, and trying to merge that content into a table would not be an easy task.   Wes Mouse | chat  13:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sakhalin Oblast

An IP keeps adding content about Sakhalin Oblast making their début in the contest without providing a source to verify this addition. I have searched the internet and cannot find anything to verify that this Oblast will be making a début, just in case the IP wasn't aware of how to add citation. Now they keep war-reverting, and vandalising this article. The IP has been reported to WP:AIV and the article semi-protection requested. Please could editors keep an eye out on this article and/or on the ineternet to see if any news does become published about a new region taking part. Thank you. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 12:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Uyghurs in Kazakhstan.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

"Kumyk in the Turkvision Song Contest" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Kumyk in the Turkvision Song Contest has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 12 § Kumyk in the Turkvision Song Contest until a consensus is reached. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)