Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Controversial win, keep an eye on vandalism

As the Azerbaijani win tonight was quite controversial with all going on with Armenia etc etc. I think it would be good if we all together keep on the look out for vandalism on this Eurovision 2012 article from now on. Already after an hour there is quite heavy IP vandalism. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You can see evidence already beneath this comment of the troubles ahead of pro-armenia and pro-azerbaijan.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Armenia–Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest

This headline is one-sided propaganda. If you actually visit the main article here , you will see there is controversy from both sides. Yet this headline only targets Azerbaijan. Also some of the sources are not neutral. This headline simply is not Wikipedia material and must be adjusted accordingly.Neftchi (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

We have had this discussion already on the other articles talk page and it was established as a good source. BUT if you can find a better source and provide a better sentence then please do. But just dont delete it,. thanks--BabbaQ (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

What other talk page, please show us the link. Neftchi (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Also this source does not mention that "Armenians are not allowed entrance to Azerbaijan". In fact Armenian journalists and diplomats have entered Azerbaijan on many occasions.Neftchi (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I have now removed the areas concerning these claims of yours. Im not having another senseless argument with someone. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Also journalists and diplomats are not the same as an average Armenian citizen.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If people want they can read about the problems between Azerbaijan and Armenian in Eurovision in the main article. A link is provided for the readers. This dispute between the countries should not be further expanded as it is already more than the actual subject of the article. Neftchi (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Armenian diplomats and journalists are citizens of Armenia too. Please dont be discriminating. Neftchi (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said im not getting into a senseless discussion over pro-armenia or pro-azerbaijan. sorry.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

However the summary of the issues ahead are enough and should not be expand further for now I agree. It is a good summary of the events so far. But it is a true issue with Armenia in the Eurovision next year no one can deny that. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This section must be removed as it is very biased and creates problem for the contest.--NovaSkola (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop immediatly to remove information from this article. Yes it is controversial but cjust because it is controversial doesnt mean it should be removed. It can be discussed further. But per fact it is a problem ahead which mean even security risk for the Armenian delegation next year. I see you have an interest in Azerbaijani articles. You might be from Azerbaijan I dont know, but its not OK to remove information just because you dont agree with it on a nationlistic pointview. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Past controversies involving Azerbaijan shouldn't be brought up again in this article unless there are clear sources making them an issue for 2012. The overall premise of the section that the controversies "may affect" Azerbaijan's ability to host the contest, and while that may be true, it is still original research without sources explicitly giving that view. So removal was probably right for the time being. CT Cooper · talk 10:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. Remove it for now. When it becomes a problem then we return it. Good to get a second non-bias opinion. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The "See also" mention is good enough for now I guess to.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I've actually removed that link too, for essentially the same reasons CT Cooper summed up quite well. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Austria not yet confirmed

Austria's participation in 2012 is not yet confirmed. The cited newspaper article does not tell anything about next year. It's all about this year's exitement (or lack thereof). --62.167.137.3 (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it seems like a confirmation of participation: "Deswegen wird auch nächstes Jahr wieder ein heimischer Künstler antreten. " --Christian140 (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Czech Republic didn't confirm return

There will be discussion in Czech Republic, but nobody confirmed their return. (78.136.162.196 (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC))

I agree. Source linked says that it's from some "direct source", but can't say who is that source. Therefore I find this information unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.173.20.32 (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. That is why I deleted it. I hope it sticks like that. Tony0106 (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

norway will paricipate but might drop their selection

according to what i have read their song have already been selected internally. the norwegian selection have also been corrupted to the point where the participant is always selected from the third semi final. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.86.142 (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I've also heard that from next year broadcasters must use a national selection. But both of these statements are as of now are a mystery. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC) norway will at least participate. people are however still discussing how the national final will be.

interwiki

please add georgian interwiki ka:ევროვიზიის სიმღერის კონკურსი 2012--David1010 (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Poland

Poland may retire next year due to poor performance and financial problems of the public broadcaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.217.140 (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This claim has been repeatedly added to the article, and removed because of a lack of sourcing. Anyone is free to re-add it if they can give some reliable sources. CT Cooper · talk 16:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

In Swedish wikipedia page there are references, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.217.140 (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The Swedish version does not give a source, and is tagged: [källa behövs] = [citation needed]. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

A spokesperson of TVP has confirmed in an e-mail sent to me that Poland will most definitely take part in ESC 2012. Unfortunately, this is no valid source and, therefore, I feel it should not be added to the article.--130.226.70.114 (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If you remove your name from the email, and provide translation, you should post the email here to verify your claim doktorb _words^deeds 17:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

France and Belarus confirmed

You should add these two countries as confirmed.

Source for France: http://www.eurovision-fr.net/news/index.php?page=1&num=#1127. The paragraph: "Toujours sur toutelatele.com Pierre Sled (Directeur des programmes qui avait fait le déplacement à Düsseldorf) déclare que la France continuera de participer à l'Eurovision : bla bla bla". These sites are reliable. Source for Belarus: http://dziennik-eurowizyjny.blog.pl (in Polish). The article: Białoruś i Finlandia gotowe na ESC (Belarus and Finland confirms participation in ESC 2012). Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.163.71.78 (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

you can add norway as well. norway have only withdrawn once and that was together with other countries due to 4 countries winning. in 2002 they were relegated and wasnt allowed to participate otherwise they would. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.86.142 (talk)

Internal selections not allowed from 2012 onwards

From 2012 onwards, entirely internal selections will no longer be allowed. Sietse Bakker, Executive Supervisor of the Junior Eurovision Song Contest and Event Supervisor of the Eurovision Song Contest, confirmed this in an interview with Belgian fansite Eurosong.be. Performers may still be chosen internally, but the songs themselves must be chosen by means of a public vote. EBU bevestigt: ‘Volgend jaar publieke selectie verplicht --130.226.70.114 (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't think this is a probability, because you know what some people say in interviews and programs like Your Country Needs You do it the other way round. Spa-Franks (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Baku

I think saying it is in Baku, is a bit premature. The two sources given are newspapers (Russian newspapers, but if I'll trust they say Baku), but this is obviously based only on the assumption that in all likeliness this will be the venue. No reliable source has confirmed the venue (reliable in this case being only the host broadcaster or the EBU). While, given the Armenia issue, it could arise that it will not take place in Azerbaijan at all, given the recent rarity of another broadcaster hosting the event, I think assuming it will be Azerbaijan is an acceptably reliable statement. I agree, in all likeliness it will also be in Baku (especially since the venues under consideration are all there), but I don't think there is sufficient information to confirm this. - 46.7.141.61 (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

how you are such a source of authoritative and influential Russian newspaper - Rossijskoj Gazety [1]?--analitic114 (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There is also this source cited as well, which appears to be a bit closer to home, though it appears to be behind some sort of pay wall. I do think Wikipedia was jumping the gun by treating a claim in a Russian newspaper, even it is reliable on Wikipedia's standards, as an absolute confirmation that the contest will be held in Baku. While I will not remove the content as it stands, a source from the EBU or the broadcaster would be more helpful. At the end of the day, it is not a race, and being cautious is not a problem. CT Cooper · talk 23:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, during first days after ESC 2010 some media reported that ESC 2011 would take placein Berlin, just because it's capital of Germany. Same as you, I'm not sure it's gonna be in Azerbaijan at all. Let's wait for EBU statement, we should have it in less than one month. Meanwhile, I would change it to "It's likely to be held in Baku, Azerbaijan, following Azerbaijan's win in the 2011 Contest with Eldar & Nigar's song "Running Scared""... Statements of Azebaijan authorities are irrelevant until EBU confirms it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.173.20.32 (talk)

Turkey

The reference link doesn't provide any confirmation for Turkish entry. The link is all about a singer/song writer nominates himself for 2012. --85.98.189.130 (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Portugal

Due to international financial rescue, and because RTP should be privatised till the end of 2011, Portugal won't have a public Tv broadcaster and so there is a very high probability of definitive withdrawl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.129.13.226 (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

According to Today.az, Portugal will skip the 2012 contest. One more country to skip the "Eurovision 2012" --Ahmetyal 11:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Armenia

Armenia is back in the possible withdrawal list and now has two citations, one is the Russian version of Eurasianet.org's article 'Armenia: Yerevan Grapples with Eurovision Dilemma', which is an article highlighting the political dilema of Armenia participating, but not mentioning anything about them withdrawing, and the other is Eurovisionary. This article, on a site which is essentially a fan site, makes two statements that say that officials have "mentioned" that they'll possibly withdraw and one of them is in the third person. There's no actual official statement quoted by any Armenian official on the subject. On this basis would anyone else agree that these sources be deemed inappropriate and the entry removed until a better source can be found? ~~ Peteb16 (talk)

it doesnt exactly seem reliable so i say that it should be removed until a better source have been found.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.86.142 (talk)

I am generally in agreement with these concerns. The first source talks about the difficulty of participating, and doesn't talk about "possible withdrawal" (if anything, on my reading it leans towards the view that Armenia will get over any possible difficulties), so an argument could be made that using this source is original research. On the EuroVisionary source, this website hasn't been formally scrutinised on its reliability, but I would say at best that it is semi-reliable. Furthermore, it would be more helpful to readers if a brief description of why these countries are considering withdrawal was added. CT Cooper · talk 17:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrong participant

German participant in ESC2011 is not Christy Portelli. Germany has not decided yet.

Svilka555 (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. This appears to have been fixed now. CT Cooper · talk 19:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom confirm 2012 participation

According to the BBC's Eurovision page, they have confirmed their participation for Baku 2012, in a short but to the point line which reads "We're closing the News Blog at midday on Wednesday 22nd June - although you'll be able to read all of the posts that have already been made. See you all in 2012!" http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/eurovision/ 80.192.226.205 (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It could be used, but it is not ideal, as something more specific would be better. Normally blogs are not acceptable as sources either, but given that this one is an official blog of the BBC, this is not an issue. CT Cooper · talk 09:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that a bit contradictory then? Last year Wikipedia added the UK as confirmed the minute that the BBC put in the phrase "See you all in 2011!" on their main Eurovision page. This year they have the same comment put but placed it on their news section, and it doesn't get included as confirmed for 2012? Hmmm horses for courses I guess. 80.192.226.205 (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a collaborative project which is full of contradictions. I did say "it could be used" - I can't remember what I said, if anything, last year - I probably either ignored it or didn't notice it. In any case, another editor can add it if they wish, and I won't revert, since it almost certainly means the UK will be back in 2012, however it is still very vague and something more solid would be better. It is early days yet, and there is no race to add countries as confirmed. CT Cooper · talk 19:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

As much as I understand that it isn't a race to add countries as confirmed. Is it not also true that Wikipedia like to pride themselves on maintaining any article to its truest form as possible? And as you pointed that the BBC Eurovision page is a reliable source, and also the fact that last year a similar link from the BBC's own page was used to confirm the UK's participation in 2011 when they (BBC) used the phrase "See you all in 2011". Then shouldn't it be the case that this be repeated again, now that the BBC have used the same phrase "See you all in 2012"? I do recall last year that the link for "See you all in 2011" was used as a source of confirmation; and then once further details about Blue came out, then the link was altered. 80.192.226.205 (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It is also showing on the BBC Eurovision's Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/BBCEurovision) that they will be reopening the page in 2012. Again another sign that the UK ARE taking part in 2012. Why would the BBC inform fans that they will "see us all in 2012" and "the facebook page reopens in 2012" if they have no intentions of participating? 80.192.226.205 (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability is more important than truth. The issue here is the no original research policy states that advancing a position not explicitly stated in the sources is not permitted. This means that in order to source the claim that the UK will return in 2012 a reliable source needs to explicitly state that the UK will participate in 2012. "See you all in 2012" isn't doing this, and interpreting or inferring it to mean the UK will participate in 2012 is a form of original research. This is what I meant by "something more specific would be better". However, given that it is almost certain that the UK will participate next year, with nothing saying otherwise, use of that source may be "tolerated", though for policy reasons, I do not endorse its use. CT Cooper · talk 16:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

So, yes or no? The BBC have lied to us in the past (and I hardly ever use smileys, but erm, :-x) --Spa-Franks (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No, from me. "See you in 2012" could mean - "See you next year, when we're following Eurovision for the first time as an observing country, not as a participant". It could also mean "See you in 2012 when we announce Alanis Morisette as our representative". It could mean anything. So for that reason, it's best left out doktorb _words^deeds 18:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Spelling

Can someone with editing rights please change the spelling of the word "privatisation", etc. in the main article, because they have been spelt with the letter "z" and this is the American spelling. We should really put the British spelling because this is a European contest! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.85.235 (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

-ize endings are Americanisms only to the extent that US spelling is standardised to -ize for most words; in British English -ize is acceptable alongside -ise. See Oxford spelling and this article. Per the spirit of WP:ENGVAR, spelling changes should be kept to a minimum. CT Cooper · talk 23:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Greenland

I think that Greenland should be purple too,as part of Denmark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.12.157.139 (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

that would be like putting australia as part of england. both countries have their own rule but share monarchs with other countries.

No. Greenland is a part of Denmark just as Wales is a part of UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.1.199 (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Greenland Belongs to the "Kingdom of Denmark", which consists of Denmark, Greenland & the Faroe Islands, but not to "Denmark". They have own Parliament with much Autonomy, don't belong to the European Community (they don't even belong to Europe, since, they are a Part of the American Continent) & what's important for ESC: they can't vote in it, not even in the Dansk Melodi Grand Prix. So, they are not like Wales, they are more like the British Virgin Islands.--78.43.169.73 (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Armenia and Czech Republic "confirmed" by unreliable sources.

• ARMENIA - I think we should wait for a statement from the official broadcaster. Those news appearently come from an Azerbaijani news agency but it only speculates it doesn't mention ARMTV anywhere. And logically speaking, it is hard to believe that an Azerbaijani news agency would be the first to talk about an Armenian participation over their official broadcaster or even the EBU.

• CZECH REPUBLIC - If the Czech Republic were to return eurovision.tv would be the first to report that as they are always on track with the returning countries - as it happened to Italy last year - and once again the official confirmation seems to come from a Slovakian-based ESC-fan web page. Once again there is no official statement from ČT while the other source comes from a blog.

C'mon guys those are unrealiable sources. That is why I decided to remove them. My suggestion is to stick with sources coming from the Official Participating Broadcasters, the EBU, or other longtime ESC-fan based websites such as ESCToday.com or eurovision-spain.com, for instance. Tony0106 (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

maybe kosovo will participate

they certainly participated in eurovision young dancers. though it is only speculation, the fact remains that they did participate in eurovision young dancers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.86.142 (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

There participation in EYD is certainly an interesting development, however we will need solid sourcing before anything can be added to this article - particularly with Kosovo, as historically any mention of them Eurovision articles has caused conflict between editors. CT Cooper · talk 20:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the official EBU website, active membership of EBU requires membership of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Since countries with limited recognition are ineligible for ITU membership, Kosovo will be able to participate in the ESC only when the country is fully recognised.--130.226.70.114 (talk) 08:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC) it is still a while until next year so you shouldnt rule them out completely.

So Kosovo would never partipicate,because if all countries recognise it,Serbia won't.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AggelakisS RazoR (talk • contribs) 16:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

what happens to the big 5?

it should be added to the article wether the system remains or gets altered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.86.142 (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing will happen to the big five; the voting window was changed from allowing voting to occur during and after the performances as opposed to just after them as was from 1997-2009. — Ines(talk) 18:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think focusing on what changes is best. If the article listed each year what didn't change, we would end up with many long and repetitive sections. CT Cooper · talk 19:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Also need to point out, four of the Big 5 have yet to officially confirm their participation. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Could be big 6 though - France, Azerbaijan, Italy, UK, Germany, Spain? Or maybe they'll make Azerbaijan qualify. --Spa-Franks (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijan is the Host...--78.43.169.73 (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

More to withdraw

The Serbian version of this page has Spain, San Marino, and Greece, as withdrawing from 2012 doktorb _words^deeds 12:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

None of them have any sources — Ines(talk) 13:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Host city and country still to be confirmed by the EBU

According to ESCDaily.com, the EBU has still yet to officially award the 2012 contest to Azerbaijan, pending security, VISA, and freedom of expression guarantees from the would-be host country. With this in mind, would it not be best to have this pointed out in the article, as a change to the hosting nation is still in the balance; despite the fact that Baku and Azerbaijan are preparing to host the contest. 80.192.226.205 (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC) (UPDATE) Here is the weblink to the ESCDaily article showing that Azerbaijan still haven't been confirmed as host nation. http://escdaily.com/articles/19947

Armenia!! CONFIRMED!!

In Spanish wikipedia puts that Armenia has confirmed that, reference: http://www.azernews.az/en/Arts_and_Culture/34291-Armenia_opts_to_join_Eurovision_contest_in_Azerbaijan_-_report . I am Spanish ;) Thanks

Greece

The economic problems of this country could lead to his departure from the Eurovision Song Contest next year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.216.218 (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

SPAIN

SPAIN CONFIRMED!. REFERENCE: http://blog.rtve.es/eurovision/2011/06/eurovisi%C3%B3n-2011-el-loco-festival-que-nos-lleva-a-bak%C3%BA.html RTVE(OFFICIAL TV) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2011SERGIO (talk • contribs) 18:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This information is not official, it's just an opinion article. TVE is not confirmed to participate next year with this. (I'm Spanish). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.216.218 (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I work in TVE. I can confirm that Spain will be in Baku. Are working on the website will be available in October. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xela281092 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

the july 22 attacks could cause norway to withdraw

several channels havent returned to regular schedules yet so until they do this matter is unresolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.86.142 (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

But the Norwegian final is not until next year (~February), most likely Norway will still go ahead with the contest, its good for a country to remember, and to move forward. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 15:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What about MOROCCO ?

Several sites announce the return of Morocco in 2012. The head of the French delegation confirmed it in an interview before the 2011's competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fazouzoo (talk • contribs) 22:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's true!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.216.218 (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Please, give us the link! So, we could mention this in the article. -- Redpower94 (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes exactly provide source for it and it will be included in the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The link of the interview (in french) : http://www.mediaunautreregard.com/2011/05/10/pour-tout-savoir-sur-eurovision-sur-france-o-et-france-3-avec-bruno-berberes-chef-de-delegation-de-la-france-producteur-delegue-et-commentateur/. The reporter's question: Quite distant countries of Europe in the Eurovision Song Contest? The response of the head of the French delegation : [.....] Morocco, too, and this country has already done and I think it will come next year.Fazouzoo (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

the article on the norwegian participation needs work

the website about the norwegian selection doesnt say anything about how the selection will be. that might still be under discussion. therefore the part about 21 song going to the semi finals should be removed. for all i know they might increase the number again. they increased it from 18 to 21. they could increase it further to 24. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.86.142 (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

References

Please avoid using www.oikotimes.com as a source. They are not reliable. Use www.esctoday.com or www.eurovision.tv instead. Thanks! Porcina (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Oikotimes.com is a little bit better than Esctoday.com! CoolAbc (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Eurovision/Archive_4#RfC_on_reliable_sources_for_Eurovision_articles -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

ESCTODAY.com reports that a newspaper confirmed Israelic participation. Is that a reliable source? CoolAbc (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it should be. CT Cooper · talk 17:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect use of cite web

Unfortunately it appears that {{Cite web}} is not being correctly used in the article. The two main noticeable issues are:

• The accessdate= parameter is for the date when you (the editor) accesses the article/news story. This is so a date is recorded for when the link was working. It is not for the date of publication, which uses the date= parameter.
• The language= parameter is only for content that is not in English. Please do not put "language=English".

I am going to go through the article and correct these errors now. While mistakes are fixable, please read the documentation at Template:Cite web if you are unsure about how to use the template. CT Cooper · talk 16:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA CONFIRMS!

This is a article from oikotimes >>>

http://www.oikotimes.com/eurovision/2011/08/09/bhrt-asks-your-opinion-for-2012/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.11.73.143 (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless the "BH Eurosong page" is run for the broadcaster or the EBU, then this is not a confirmation of participation, since any fansite could run a poll on 2012 just on the assumption that Bosina and Herzegovina will participate. While significant leeway is often given on sources confirming participation, anything less than "X country will participate in the 2012 Eurovision Song Contest", or paraphrasing of that, is not ideal. CT Cooper · talk 18:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Italy and San Marino

http://esfmagazine.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/italie-en-san-marino-in-2012-weer-van-de-partij/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.216.218 (talk) 12:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I have translated the article and while it appears to be a confirmation, the website is a WordPress blog which does not exactly indicate reliability. CT Cooper · talk 13:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I also have a link in Russian that tells Italy and San Marino confirmed. This source is pretty serious.

http://www.1news.az/bomond/eurovision/20110810042625807.html

I hope it helps.--NovaSkola (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, it helps alright. There appears to be a long list of confirmed participants at the end of that article as well, which I will try and add to the article now. CT Cooper · talk 14:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

map changes, please

Turkey needs to be removed from the map and Romania added.74.131.99.14 (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate my request that the map be updated to reflect the fact that there are 29 confirmed participants in ESC 2012.74.131.99.14 (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately per below not all editors accept that there are twenty-nine confirmed participants, and the article is currently in the eighteen confirmed participants version. CT Cooper · talk 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

But the map doesn't even reflect the shorter list, as Spain and Romania are not present. 74.131.99.14 (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That's true, but updating svg maps is not my area. You might want to ask AxG (talk · contribs) or Sims2aholic8 (talk · contribs) directly, who usually update the map. CT Cooper · talk 21:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Italy NOT CONFIRMED!!!

RAI Have not yet confirmed participation. THe participation at Ebu will be dicuss only in december. Source: I know Nicola Caligiore, the Head of the delegation of Italy, he told me that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emanuele75 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, firstly posting in all caps is not necessary and is considered to be shouting. Secondly, please post new sections at the bottom of the page. The Azerbaijani source is clear on Italy's intent to participate in 2012, even if the final decision on all participants will be made in December. I'm afraid Wikipedia functions using published sources and word of mouth cannot hold much sway here. CT Cooper · talk 21:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

So, a source taken from I don't know what is more important than the word of the head of delegation...I'm astonished. Rai tv in this time have not discussed 2012 partecipation because director and managers are changed and more of them don't like the result of tv share in 2011. Speaking with Caligiore he says me that Italy can return but this will be a difficult struggle to fight also because 2012 edition will be in Azerbaijan. Rai Internaional wants Italy on Esc 2012 so they will make all the efforts to do that but for the moment Rai managers don't want to speak about esc. Thhey considered a Flop the edition 2011... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emanuele75 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Azerbaijani source is from a reliable news site, and barring not being in English, is an ideal source to use to confirm participation given that it explicitly states that Italy is intending to participate in 2012. Yes maybe the final decision will be taken later - though that can be said for all countries, which are free to withdraw before the deadline. I'm afraid editors need to see this from Wikipedia's point of view - anyone can come onto this talk page and claim they have spoken with someone who is the head of the delegation, but unless there is proof it cannot be given much consideration. Policy is very clear on this point:

“ The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. ” — Wikipedia:Verifiability

An additional issue here is the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which states Wikipedia cannot claim somebody said something without high quality reliable sources. Please read both that policy, and Wikipedia:Verfiability, thoroughly. CT Cooper · talk 13:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

San Marino have confirmed participation at ESC 2012, according to Oikotimes.com - see this link http://www.oikotimes.com/v2/index.php?file=articles&id=8922. Also Oikotimes reported in another article that in the event that a non-big 5 nation wins the contest, and as Italy insisted to continue participation for many years to come, then the grand final shall consist of 26 nations and not 25 - see this link http://www.oikotimes.com/eurovision/2011/05/12/eurovision-2012-on-may-26/ . This shows that RAI have informed the EBU that they are staying in the contest for at least a few more years. 80.192.226.205 (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Look at this Italian source: http://www.eurofestival.ws/2011/08/11/ancora-non-confermate-le-partecipazioni-di-italia-e-san-marino-allesc-2012/. It clearly says that Anselmi (member of the Sammarinese delegation for ESC 2011) has been interviewed about ESC, but he also said that his words were misunderstood and there is still nothing definite about next year's Sammarinese participation. No official words about Italian participation, but I think this should be at least a hint about how unreliable Azeri media are right now. The website is one of the few Italian ones talking about ESC and, in my experience, it proved to be quite reliable about last ESC --SimoneMLK (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, Oikotimes. Is the site that last january totally invented an interview with Eddy Anselmi (Haed of pres of San Marino) and totally invented two "true" titles of the song.. very reliable --Emanuele75 (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The current article isn't using Oikotimes on Italy. In any case, at worst Oikotimes is no better than word of mouth. CT Cooper · talk 16:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but after reading the website to which SimoneMLK shared the link to, it looks very much like a "blogger" fansite. And whenever a "follower" to the blog posts a comment, a user with the same name SimoneMLK appears to post an answered reply as if they are a moderator to the blog. Isn't using self-published material as a source against Wikipedia's policies of verifiability? I'm sure I read something somewhere about it being prohibited to use self-publishing material. 80.192.226.205 (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Self-published material is frequently an issue with content in Eurovision articles. It is not allowed at all for material about living people unless the living person being discussed authored it, per WP:BLPSPS. Self-published material elsewhere is also largely not acceptable, though the rules are a little more relaxed, per WP:SPS. CT Cooper · talk 18:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not a moderator, just a simple user: and I use this nickname on many websites (different language version of wikipedia, ESC websites, forums and so on). "Blog" is just a format, its contents can be less or more reliable. EscToday is a blog, too: short articles everyone can reply to. Does that make it less reliable? It does not seem so. The website I linked above is a good, independent website, just like EscToday, but on a smaller scale, covering news mostly about Italy and San Marino (being based in Italy). Its articles can be commented by anyone, including me. Not that I have much choice: in Italy media do not care about ESC and that website is pretty much the only good website we have, which, as I write above, proved to be very reliable with Italian/Sammarinese news. If having a "blog format" makes it unreliable, so stop using Oikotimes and EscToday. Strictly speaking, even the Eurovision.tv news section is a blog: what about that? --SimoneMLK (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Eurovision.tv is the official website for Eurovision, created by the EBU, so that site isn't a blogsite as such. As for ESCToday.com, they used "sourced material" in their articles, and lately seem to be working closely alongside the EBU and national broadcasters, since a former editor of ESCToday, Sieste Bakker, now works for the EBU itself. So in my opinion, I wouldn't say that ESCToday is a blogsite either. Oikotimes on the other hand, have published articles quoting and backing them up with "sourced material", and yet they appear to have articles published by members of the page too, which would seem to make it an "open-blog" page. 80.192.226.205 (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

news.az is an unreliable source

I edited back to the previous 18 participating countries list because that news.az website should not be used as a reliable source to determine the participating countries as its "references" comes from fan websites and blogspots. As I mention before in this discussion page. We must stick to the EBU-related websites, ESCToday (with EBU references), or the national broadcaster-s webiste to confirm the participants. I hope it stays that way. Tony0106 (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the revert blanket reverted a large number of edits, some of which were unrelated to this issue, which is not appropriate. The addition of the content was also accepted by multiple editors per above and should not have been reverted unilaterally. Furthermore, sorry, I don't accept these claims. I see no evidence that there sources are from unreliable fan sites. This is a news site which is the bread and butter of what is reliable on Wikipedia, per WP:NEWSORG. Unless there is credible evidence showing otherwise they should be considered reliable. There is no requirement to use the EBU or broadcasters directly, secondary sources are perfectly legitimate, in fact Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written using them, per WP:SECONDARY. CT Cooper · talk 08:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Tony is right: an unreliable source was used. At the moment, Italy, San Marino, the Czech Republic and Slovakia have NOT confirmes their presence at ESC 2012.--Ranma25783 (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting for a policy based reason for the removal here and a proper response to my comments above, none has been provided as of yet. I'm not reverting again for the moment, but on the other hand I'm not dropping this. CT Cooper · talk 10:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm with CT Cooper on this one. And I've read the "about our company" section on News.az, it reads as follows...
"News.Az is among the region’s leaders in online news and information delivery.
Updated 24 hours, seven days a week, News.Az features the latest multimedia technologies, from live video streaming to audio packages and photo galleries.
Our team:
Elnur Baimov – editor@news.az
Anne Thompson – anne.thompson@news.az
Leyla Tagiyeva – leyla@news.az
Aliyah Fridman – aliyah@news.az
Akper Gasanov – akper@news.az
Elmir Aliyev – sport@news.az
So I'd say it is a genuine online English-language newspaper from Azerbaijan, . 80.192.226.205 (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

A lot of websites will praise themselves, but having a good editorial team is usually the hallmark of reliability in sources, and I agree with your conclusion that they are a legitimate news site of Azerbaijan that offers a wide variety of news including weather reports - meaning they are reliable per WP:NEWSORG. I also used 1news.az which is not in English, but if anything is even more reliable since they appear to be a TV news station. I think many editors, particularly those who don't edit Eurovision articles, will find the current situation difficult to understand, given that there are sources in the article at the moment of more questionable reliability than these ones. CT Cooper · talk 21:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

With that agreed conclusion then, wouldn't be best to revert everything back to how it was? Although I'm not fussed either way in all honesty. Also, another Azeri newsite, Today,az has just reported that Montenegro are looking into a return to ESC 2012 - http://www.today.az/news/entertainment/92428.html . 80.192.226.205 (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I originally reverted Tony0106 (talk · contribs) this morning (UTC/GMT) for a lack of a solid policy based reason for the removal of sourced content, but I myself was reverted by Ranma25783 (talk · contribs), with the user saying "Tony is right", but he/she did not respond to any of the points I raised or otherwise justify their position. I decided to not to make any more reverts today to avoid an edit war, but on the other hand I was not going to drop this. If there are no clear policy based reasons for the removal of this content presented by tomorrow morning (UTC/GMT) by any editor then I will consider putting all the content back as it was with twenty-nine confirmed participants. I'm not too fussed either given that sooner or later other sources will confirm the missing countries, though I am still concerned that this may set a bad precedent outside policy that will cause problems in future articles. CT Cooper · talk 21:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue here because people will always find a way to make this blog entries legitimate. That is why the only thing I'm going to suggest here is that we must stick from official confirmations by the EBU or the broadcaster's website. On the other hand CT Cooper you've already started an edit war it doesn't matter if you edit the page tomorrow or within 2 days. I'd also like to ask you if the Czech Republic has confirmed their return. Why no other website (than news.az) have expressed anything about it? An eurovision-based website? the EBU? why CT, Czech's national broadcaster, have not say anything about this issue? Anyhow as I mention before my suggestion is to add information only coming from the EBU or the broadcasters' websites. Please discuss. Tony0106 (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Disputing someone's position is not edit warring; this is a collaborative project and asking for users to justify their actions is not unreasonable. Also, may I point out that it takes two to edit war. Please note that there are two different news sites being discussed here with similar names, both of which have overlapped in what countries they confirm, these being News.az and 1news.az, neither of which are blogs by any definition.

As for the suggestion of only using the EBU and the broadcasters for confirmation, or any other source which is close to the EBU, this is effectively saying we should only use primary sources rather than secondary sources. The main problem with this idea is that it it is not backed by policy, in fact it can be argued that contradicts it. As I said earlier, WP:SECONDARY makes clear that encyclopedic articles are supposed to be written based on secondary sources, and while primary sources can be used, secondary sources should be in the majority. It would be wrong to write an article about a company using only primary sources from that company, and it is equally wrong to write Eurovision articles only using sources from the EBU. I agree that there are some cases in which we should be more cautious on the sources, but banning legitimate news sites because they are not Eurovision sites contradicts WP:NEWSORG, and does not make a great deal of sense, given that reliability is not measured on how close a source is to the topic. I note that no justification has yet been provided about how this proposal follows policy, a major hole in the case for it that needs to be addressed by anyone who supports it.

On your point that other websites have not confirmed these countries, there could be many different explanations for this. Broadcasters do not need to publicly announce that they are planning to participate, and there has been at least anecdotal evidence from previous years that they sometimes don't. It was claimed earlier that the news site are using "fan websites and blogspots", but no evidence of this has been provided, and I think that is unlikely. More likely the news sites are privately talking to the broadcasters themselves, perhaps like the blogs which are also saying that these countries are confirmed. The reason use of the news sites is appropriate over blogs is because we know they have an editorial team and do pay some attention to factual accuracy. Yes news sites are not perfect, and do not meet academic standards, but they are reliable enough for Wikipedia per WP:NEWSORG. CT Cooper · talk 10:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I propose that this mater should be taken to some sort of "open" discussion, and see what other editors think about it, in order to resolve this in a peaceful and diplomatic manner. And in such event, I would be happy to join Wikipedia, by creating a profile, so that I may take part in the tribunal as a mediator, willing to see all sides of this case. 80.192.226.205 (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I have now joined wikipedia, and created my own user page, for the purpose of participating in any dispute cases that may need to be taken in order to resolve this matter peacefully. Wesley Mouse (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for registering. I also hope to resolve this peacefully, and that is why I am continuing to engage in the discussion until we reach an agreement. Thank you also for your offer to act as a mediator, the only problem is though that you have already stated a position in the dispute, which may mean that other users won't accept you in a mediator role. If discussion fails to resolve the issue, there are informal mediation venues available on Wikipedia such as the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, in which case a mediator will randomly be assigned. For other disputes, they are always looking for new mediators. CT Cooper · talk 15:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind welcome CT Cooper (talk · contribs), and also for your invitation to join the Wikiproject for Eurovision. I have accordingly accepted your invited and added my name to the list of active users, as per guidance. And of course, I agree with your point on mediating, as I have already stated a "side" within this dispute, it would be reckless of me to act as mediator in the event of a tribunal happening. If there is anything however that I may be of assistance with, then please don't hesitate to leave me a message via my talk page. Wesley Mouse (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to raise a serious and possibly valid point, based on what Tony0106 has come out with, stating that News.az and other "blog" sites shouldn't be used as sourced material, including Oikotimes, for this article, to which he has reverted everything back to the "18 countries". Has Tony not noticed the references section, to the current article!? The following websites to which Tony states are "blog sites and unreliable, have been used; Pravda.ru; anspress.com; abc.az; news.az; Eurovision-2012.com; 1news.az; Oikotimes; Today.az; and Gün.Az. So why is it that he insists that the article HAD to be reverted due to these sites being unreliable, but yet leaves a large chunk of the article still including them? The article should either allow these sites to be used throughout, or not at all. If not at all, then a full removal of any piece of context that uses these sites should be done. Wesley Mouse (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, it's time to enter in this talk also for the fact that was a position of mine against things wikipedia says on esc 2012 that gave origin to that. I think in this case primary sources must have to be the first choose. As for the secondary ones, it's ok you can use them (also italian newsblog http://news.eurofestival.ws is a secondary one), but I think in necessary to take an effort to use the one of single country. Danish sites for Denmrk in ex. Italian sites for Italy and San Marino and so on. This because each single country have a particular situation, News.az is a reliable source for azeri news on esc but the problem, is that he took news from other countries form variouas sources. Example. A dutch blog made interwiew with San Marino head of press speaking of Italy but misunderstood Anselmi's words (or forced them, who can says this?. News.az didn't verify news towards an italian source but took that as good. Result: italian fans wrote a lot of mails to sites and blogs asking more about "the confirmed Italian ans sammarinese partecipation", and also to the HOD. But news was not true and sites had to publish a post to say this. http://www.eurofestival.ws/2011/08/11/ancora-non-confermate-le-partecipazioni-di-italia-e-san-marino-allesc-2012/

This is what can happen when a site of a country publish a news about another country take that from again another country's site. That can have misunderstood something... --Emanuele75 (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

PS Please. Don't consider Oikotimes a reliable source. More than one time the site invented news.

Firstly, I am going to re-emphasise the point that policy is clear that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on secondary sources, per WP:SECONDARY, and that is not going to change regardless of what happens here. Officially, at least an article is not allowed to exist without secondary sourcing. It is also clear that news sites are by default considered reliable, per WP:NEWSORG. Note that reliable doesn't mean perfect, and that news organisations certainly aren't as reliable as some other sources such as scientific journals. Primary sources are allowed, and we could be more selective on the choice of sources, but anything along the lines of "no secondary sources" is not going to be compatible with policy. Policy is also clear that sources must be published, per Wikipedia:Verifiability, regardless of if they are primary or secondary. Some sources, such as editor's word of mouth, are never going to acceptable as a source on Wikipedia, and again that is not going to change regardless of what happens here. There seems to be a general misconception repeatedly floating in these kind of discussions that having Eurovision articles follow policy is optional, well I'm afraid it isn't.

However, I would accept that az.news and 1az.news (there are two websites being discussed here) may not be reliable for Eurovision content if there is substantial evidence showing this, particularly given that the latter source appears to be a TV station, which are part of the bread and butter of what is considered reliable on Wikipedia. General word of mouth isn't going to be enough. As for the Italian article, well I don't speak Italian and it doesn't translate that well. However in any case, the reliability of that site should also be scrutinised, and I count twenty countries confirmed in that article, not eighteen as stated in the current article. Using a potentially unreliable source as evidence that a typically reliable source is unreliable could be problematic.

I somewhat agree with the opinion that Oikotimes is not reliable, and I have stated that position before, but the fact is that it has been used for years with little challenge, which makes it rather bizarre that a proper news site has been subject to so much controversy. As Wesley Mouse (talk · contribs) points out, Oikotimes and a lot of other questionable sources are in the article right now, a situation which has left other editors confused as well. CT Cooper · talk 15:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In response to Emanuele75, I haven't stated that Oikotimes should or shouldn't be used a reliable source, I merely (as well as clearly) pointed out that IF Tony insists that sources from only EBU or Official Broadcaster should be used in this article, then why is it that he has removed some of the sites that are "blogs" by reverting the article from 29 to 18 countries, but still left over 70% of the article still intact with the very same websites? A few of which are OIKOTIMES and NEWS.AZ - the very same sites to which he says shouldn't be used. If this article has to be strictly based on only EBU and National Broadcaster sourced information, then the entire article needs to be reviewed, and remove any such context that is using this sites. If, on the other hand, Tony feels that the article as it stands is perfectly fine, then he is basically contradicting his own reasons behind these sites, in allowing them to be use in one circumstance, but not in others. Like an old proverb states, "what is good for the goose, is good for the gander". Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If OIKOTIMES isn't to be relied upon as a reasonable source, then the following details needs to be removed from the article...
* Date of Cyprus national final
* Hungary confirmation
* Portugal possible withdrawal.

If news.az is an unreliable site, then the following needs to be removed...
* National park to be extended
* Ticket sales start November
* Azerbaijan already preparing to host
* Belarus confirmation
* Morocco possible return.

Now if you feel those segments are OK, then the previous revert needs to be annulled, and put back the details about there being 29 nations. It needs to be one way or another when it comes to these sites. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarification is clearly needed from both Tony0106 (talk · contribs) and Ranma25783 (talk · contribs) on what they consider to be unreliable, why sources they object to are/were still present in the article they reverted to, and how their position is in line with policies and guidelines such as WP:V and WP:IRS - the latter of which I have been asking for for a while. A response needs to be forthcoming, otherwise it will be difficult to respect the status quo. CT Cooper · talk 11:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the sources should be removed until they're confirmed as reliable, as my previous discussion has been noted previously it's very confusing for the editors who don't check talk pages. Afro (Talk) 20:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless clarification is given within the next few days from the users that contested the sources in the first place, then all the sources are likely to be restored, since the current situation clearly makes little sense. CT Cooper · talk 10:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I second CT Coopers proposal to restore all sources within the next few days, if the users don't provide clarification to their contest against the sources being used in the first place. Wesley Mouse (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I said we should only use EBU websites for confirmation of participation. I mentioned before in another discussion topic, which appearently was removed, that it was also OK to use confirmation coming from websites from the participating countries as well as other well known independent Eurovision related websites such as ESCToday.com or ESCDaily.com for instance. The reason I removed that 29 participating list is because the source provided from news.az only showed a random list of participating countries in which they never mention where they got the information from. News.az might be a well-known and respectable Azerbaijani news agency (but that doesn't really matter even Associated Press have made up stories) but their list of participating countries for the Eurovision Song Contest is nonsense. If anybody in here is somehow related to that news agency then please provide the source that told you Czech Republic was returning and that Italy and San Marino are staying for next year. On the other hand for those sources about Azerbaijan hosting and venues that can be consider reliable as they must have a team working for the ESC 2012 but trust they don't manage participations, the EBU does. About the possible return from Morocco, well they are in a "rumour" section so I think they "can" stay even though I would like to remove it as well, the same goes for Portugal with oikotimes. The Cypriot date was added after I reverted the changes I will remove it as well because CyCB hasn't say anything about how the songs will be selected. Anyways those are my arguments for now I say we should keep on discussing on this topic.189.204.69.27 (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, whoever you are please log-in. Old discussion is archived, see Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012/Archive 1. The Associated Press are considered reliable on Wikipedia's standards; I have seen no credible evidence that they have "made-up stories" nor that the list on the Azeri news site is "random". Again, as I said earlier, reliable does not mean perfect, but accurate enough for Wikipedia's standards. The fact that a news site doesn't list its sources doesn't seem very relevant to me, since if they are reliable they don't need to, and many such as the BBC, do not.

There is no agreement that ESCDaily is reliable, it is only tolerated, and the same goes for Oikotimes. As for Morocco and Portugal, well it really is all or nothing, if the source is unreliable it shouldn't be given coverage at all in the article per WP:V. This also applies to the Azeri news sites, it is either reliable for Eurovision related content, or it isn't. I don't think it is appropriate for editors to pick-and-choose what content from sources they choose to believe, given that such actions are unencyclopaedic and violate the spirit of WP:NPOV, particularly when it involves allegations without evidence. If the Azeri news site is unreliable, all content related to it should be removed, though I remain far from convinced that it is unreliable.

It's fine that you want to discussing this topic, but to be frank it is rather pointless if questions related to policy are not going to be answered. I'm still waiting for an explanation on how this position is compatible with WP:SECONDARY and WP:NEWSORG, after asking for it many times throughout this discussion. In content discussions, including this one, an argument is meaningless without any justification for how it fits in with policies and guidelines. There has not been a single reference to any policy or guideline in this discussion by any user who backs the position of removing Azeri news sits as sources, a pretty big hole in the argument as far as I'm concerned. CT Cooper · talk 10:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I say that the removed content is put back, and the article fully protected, until evidence to prove that News.az is an unreliable source. Wesley Mouse (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

News.Az has reported now that forty-one countries have confirmed participation (http://www.news.az/articles/42627). It gets this info from a site called Gun.Az. I think it's Gun.Az that we should be questioning as to if it's reliable.81.86.156.19 (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Gun.az seems to be another news site, though I don't know that much about it at this point. While in that one article they cite Gun.az, the previous articles might have been sourced from elsewhere. CT Cooper · talk 16:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I could re-add the content and fully protect the article right now, but I'm now allowed to use the administrative tools in a content dispute in which I am involved in per WP:UNINVOLVED, and in any case administrators are not allowed to use page protection in order to resolve content disputes in their favour per the Wikipedia:Protection policy. This page may be protected by another admin if there is persistent edit warring, but I would like to avoid that situation. If this discussion goes round in circles, then I may request mediation at WP:MEDCAB, failing that it will resolve itself when the EBU releases the participants list, though only temporarily, as deeper divisions over the reliability of sources will remain.

I have in the meantime removed Montenegro and Czech Republic per the WP:V "all or nothing" issue as described above. CT Cooper · talk 16:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Gun.az appears to be a similar site to news.az, in which News.az covers Azeri news in English language, and Gun.az covers the same articles but in Turkish, some of the editors that I mentioned above for News.az, also appear as list of editors for Gun.az. Now I'm not 100% sure if the 2 companies are owned by the same media group. But based on content, and also the layout of both websites, then they could be owned by the same group. Wesley Mouse (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say Gun.az is probably reliable. In any case I am still waiting for a response from Tony et al on the comments I made on other issues from the 17 August, in particular about how their position fits in with policies and guidelines. CT Cooper · talk 12:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh I am sorry. My response was the one coming from 189.204.69.27 (talk) at 03:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC). I did not notice I wasn't logged in. And well CT Cooper you should ask your friends from Gun.az/news.az where did they get all that information on that list of FOURTY-ONE participants. On the other hand if you want to eliminate all the news.az references that would be good as well. I mentioned before that news.az could be used for Azeri-related news but if its "all or nothing" then go ahead. Tony0106 (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like we're still going around in circles here. CT Cooper has constantly asked "for a response from Tony et al on the comments CT Cooper made on other issues from the 17 August, in particular about how Tony's position fits in with policies and guidelines." I feel it is now the appropriate time to take this to mediation at WP:MEDCAB so that we may achieve an overall vote on whether we should or shouldn't be using News.az and Guns.az, especially when there is reasonable evidence to state these websites are not "blogsites", but genunie newsites. Wesley Mouse (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I have a question: If News.Az/Guns.az are genuine newsites why are they the only one website confirming the participation from the Czech Republic? Where did they get that information from? It's interesting how on 10 August they confirmed the participation from Armenia and the following day Armenia's participation went under discussion. Appearently they talked to the head of the Armenian delegation, who by the way said the participats' list was fake, and she denied the confirmation. I mean it cannot be clearer that those lists are fake. I've been following the contest for several years and contributing to the Eurovision wikipages as well by this time of the year, six months ahead of the contest, we always use to have around 20 confirmed participants (usually Western European and Scandinavian countries). The list is always completed by December and they are reporting (as of 17 August) 41 participants? That is just crazy. I am sorry for calling News.az a "blogsite" but that list is obviously fake. They must show the source where they are getting all that information from. Just look what they did with the Armenian participation. They added them to the list and removed it the following day upon request of the Armenian head of delegation? I am sorry but that just cannot be reliable. Sorry. Tony0106 (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, you mention (and I quote) Appearently they talked to the head of the Armenian delegation, who by the way said the participats' list was fake, and she denied the confirmation. You write this as if you have spoken to the Armenian head of delegation personally, in which using such details as a "source" would be going against WP:NOR.

Secondly, you state that News.az and Guns.az MUST name a source in their articles in order for Wikipedia to use them as WP:Reliable. A news organisation isn't obliged to state where they got their information from. You wouldn't find a printed newspaper stating each and every source that they got their details from, they would just print the facts, and keep such information on their computer and/or hard copy records.

Thirdly, and contrary to the there is usually around 20 countries confirmed by this stage (which tends to be the case year after year), we shouldn't also except this trend to continue year after year. Nothing is predictable, and it is possible for there to be 41 confirmed participations at this stage, especially with Azerbaijan promising a "spectacular show". This could be bringing in new interest in former nations, and excitement to current one, hence the high number of confirmations at such an early stage of organising the event. We should always expect the unexpected. However, in the interest of everyone all round, would it not be feasible to have a section to state about these "alleged" confirmations, something along the lines of "according to some Azeri news websites, these nations have also confirmed participation, however there appears to be no details from the EBU nor the respective national broadcasters at this present time." This would be keeping the peace between everyone involved in this current dispute, plus would also settle the argument as to why some parts of the ESC2012 article is allowing sourced information from News.az, whilst other parts of if are not. Wesley Mouse (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Wesley Mouse is right that we are going around in circles here. I am considering a filing a requests at WP:MEDCAB and seeing how it goes, but everyone will need to agree to mediation for it to take place.

The main reason we are going round in circles is clear in my view - legitimate points and questions are being repeatedly sidestepped. From the very beginning, I asked for a policy basis for getting rid of Azerbaijan news sources, and one has not been provided despite the fact I have asked for it over three times in this discussion. On Wikipedia, we decide if something is reliable through using the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources guideline and other pages, and just throwing this out the window in such discussions is never going to be accepted. The persistent refusal to address any policy or guideline issues in this discussion is clearly not accidental, and so that leaves me and others to guess on why it is happening, and the conclusions will not likely work in the favour of those doing it. I have also asked for evidence for many of the allegations made here, such as the claim that the Associated Press make-up stories (which is a very serious accusation to make about a news service), but none have been provided.

I think I need to make clear here that I am not "friends" with any of the Azerbaijani news sites, and if they are found to be unreliable I will not be very unhappy - this discussion is not about "winning" or being proven right or wrong. The main issue I have is the process in which those that argue that Azerbaijani news sites are unreliable have reached their conclusion. For example, it is asserted above that we should reject a source because it is "crazy". This along with other comments and the previous lack of attempt to remove other content from Azerbaijani news sites, tells me that editors are picking and choosing what to believe from sources, something which clearly goes against WP:NPOV, a core policy of this project. We should be deciding what is reliable and what isn't through objective assessment of reliability with WP:IRS, not what we personally choose to believe.

Many other arguments here appear to conflict with policy. The idea that we should only use broadcasters and the EBU direct clearly contradicts WP:SECONDARY, which is part of Wikipedia:No original research, a core policy of this project. While this has been clarified to also using Eurovision sites, this is still an arbitrary idea without any basis in policy. The assumption that comes with this, that news sources are never reliable, clearly contradicts WP:NEWSORG, which says they usually are reliable on factual claims.

As for the arguments specifically on how Azerbaijani news sites are not reliable, they are on the whole unconvincing. Many news organisations make corrections when they make errors, and the fact that these sites do so is arguably evidence of reliability, not the other way round. Even if the news site are perfect, broadcasters can change there minds and often have done after confirming participation - "confirmed" does not mean "final". As for the claims from the Armenian delegation, they may have an opinion but they don't decide what is reliable and what isn't' on Wikipedia, and there is no evidence that they made such comments. Wesley Mouse addresses the other points. CT Cooper · talk 14:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what has been stated by CT and Wesley. Per the linked policies above, we cannot just randomly decide to use only "official" announcements because that is not how things are done on Wikipedia as a whole, not just on Eurovision articles. If the site posts a correction, then we will just update it. If there are contradicting articles, we can discuss which is more reliable and use that one.

Also, I keep seeing news.az referred to as a blog, but what makes it a blog? I don't think that position has been proven. Grk1011 (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh my God. GOD PLEASE PARDON ME FOR HAVING CALLED THE SO RESPECTABLE NEWS.AZ WEBSITE A "BLOGSPOT". IT ISN'T. I AM VERY SORRY. I BEG YOUR PARDON IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, THE SON, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. There you go. Tony0106 (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. First of all I only suggested that we SHOULD use EBU-related websites only to confirm a participant so we don't get into this endless discussion on what is reliable and what isn't. I am not saying WE MUST. I said that would be the best solution. Why? Common sense: If a broadcaster announces its intention to participate or its plans to pick up next years' song is because they are going to compete. But both of you are only saying that it is contradictory to wikipedia policies on secondary sources. I have asked why we don't get other source confirming 41 participants and the response I got is that I should not call news.az a blogspot and why it is against wikipedia policies not using secondary sources. That is the real reason why we are going in circles. And well ok. I am going to remove everything referring to news.az that wasn't actually my intention but neither of both of you are paying attention to my argument. Tony0106 (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sarcastic statements aren't helpful Tony0106, but thank you for acknowledging policy at long last. Your description of what me and others have said bars little relation to what was actually said - re-read again more carefully what I and others said above about how your claims that Azerbiajani news sites are problematic, the last paragraph of my last comment would be a good start. You will find that we have answered all of your points in most cases. As for removing all references to Azerbaijani news sites, well there is clearly no consensus for that action, and the likely result will be increased opposition to your position from other editors who have contributed to the aritcle, but I will leave it for now. CT Cooper · talk 10:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh Jesus. You were the one who asked me why I didn't remove other information from news.az. Now you're telling me that I shouldn't have. I honesty don't know what you want. My question hasn't been answered. I only want to know why the only website on the internet that claims we already have 41 participants is news.az? Nobody has answered that. The only thing you and your partner here had been saying is how genuine the Azerbaijani news website is and the Wikipedia policies on secondary sources. You know what, if all you want is to take over this article and say there are already 41 or 52 confirmed participants for the most spectacular eurovision contest ever done. Go ahead. I will not contribute anymore to this article, then. It's you and your friend against me. But I tell you that list is fake. I surf on Eurovision-related websites everyday and none have confirmed the participation from the Czech Republic, Italy or the Great Britain instead of United Kingdom (I assume now that Northern Ireland is going to compete separately). Tony0106 (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Tony, sorry to correct you here, but CT never instructed you to remove the other information sourced by News.az. Both CT and I pointed out that if you removed half of the article content from News.az, then shouldn't the rest be removed. As you never stated either way, we then said that it needs to be all or nothing. You then insisted that NO Azeri websites should be used as sourcing, and removed ALL content from News.az. However, there are still parts of the article using other Azeri newsites. Also, you state that you browse EVERY Eurovision-related website, and none of the mention about there being 41 confirmed participants. You obviously didn't search ALL of them, as ESCDaily.com published an article on August 17, stating that there are in fact 42 nations confirmed. Their article also states that Iceland has yet to confirm, but if they do, then the total will be 43 nations; 44 if Portugal decide not to withdraw; and 45 if Morocco return. Wesley Mouse (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a long comment, so apologies for that, but there are many points which need addressing here.

Tony, I have let your version of the article stand for almost two weeks to allow for discussion to take place, despite the fact there was never consensus for removal of Azerbaijani news sources in the first place, and there is an argument that there should have been one established before there was any kind of removal. Furthermore, while I thank you for acknowledging some of my points related to policy, the fact remains that it took nearly two weeks to get anywhere in that area, which is far too long, despite me asking over three times. In light of these facts, I am rather baffled by the suggestion that "all [I] want is to take over this article". If you wish to stop contributing that is your decision, but I am not making any apologies for not going along with your opinions here.

I think part of the problem is that there is confusion between three separate issues, all of which I have tried to address, but appear to have been mixed up in some of the responses above.

The first is the idea of what selection of sources we should use. I have indicated several times that WP:SECONDARY requires that articles should mostly (note, not entirely) use secondary sources. This means that the suggestion of only using the EBU and broadcasters direct is not likely to be acceptable. The further idea of only using EBU, broadcasters, and a narrow selection of Eurovision sites, is as I have already said arbitrary, and not supported by policy of guidelines. For example, the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources guideline states per WP:NEWSORG that news organisations are normally reliable, yet this proposal would blanket exclude all non-Eurovision sources including all news sites.

The second issue is over neutrality in determining reliability, and the way reliability has been determined in this discussion in some cases. I pointed out that we should not pick-and-choose what sources we believe based on believability of what they say, and concluded that the argument that we should not use Azeri news sites because we don't believe what they are saying, on its own, may conflict with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. This lead onto the "all or nothing" point, that we either X source is reliable for Eurovision information, or it isn't. I never at any point said I wanted removal of all Azeri news sites from the article.

The third issue is specifically about the reliability of the Azeri news sites (note, there are three different sources being discussed here). It has been established that they are not blogs, but news sites which are normally reliable per WP:NEWSORG (hence the overlap with the first issue). I said I would accept that they were not reliable if there was evidence to support it, but the evidence presented so far has not been convincing, and some allegations have been made which have not been backed-up with evidence. I'm not going through all the claims here, but if there are any I or others have not given a response too, editors are free to point them out here. Wesley Mouse has now responded to your point on other sources not saying what these websites say.

Tony asks what I want. I am flexible, but really there are three main things. Firstly, I want some acceptance that decisions over content are made based on what Wikipedia policies and guidelines say, not, as seems to have happened a lot with Eurovision articles, the personal standards of who is editing the article. This means that when discussing reliability of sources, the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources guideline is read, understood, and respected, and not just thrown out the window. Secondly, I want the Azeri news site sources to be restored based on current evidence, and finally, in the long run I want a wider discussion with as many Eurovision editors as possible, in order to agree which Eurovision sources are reliable and which aren't, again using the WP:IRS. CT Cooper · talk 18:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you notice by any chance the question mark "?" in the ESCDaily article. Have you take your time to look at the comments from the user. Around 16/21 commentators deny this information. Look at this ones:

• ...Woj: "Hahahaha - seriously? Poland and UK for sure haven't confirmed officially their participation. Same goes for most of the countries on the list - no official statements for national broadcasters. It's all rumours." "I know - I've read the article on news.az and laughed my head of. I know that few broadcasters haven't agreed yet on their budgets for 2012. I am waiting for official confirmations from the EBU, no point in getting excited over some rumours." (This is actually very important I didn't remember that by this time of the year broadcasters haven't agreed on this budget".
• Seán: "This is a long list for August"
• Jack ESC: "I WISH THESE WEBSITES WOULD ONLY REPORT THINGS ONCE THEY ARE CONFIRMED!!!!!!!!! I AM TALKING ABOUT .AZs WEBSITES NOT ESCDAILY LOL. BUT WHY MAKE ALL THESE FALSE RUMORS UP AND NOW MONTENEGRO ARE APPARETLY RETURING WTF!!!!!! MONTENEGRO HAVE NOT SAUD ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :("
• NTR: "BS, its august c'mon, normally the rumors of which countries are going to take part come out in december, oh but i forgot that the contest will be in Azerbaijan and no one wants to miss the oportunity to be on the land of fire so the confirmed their participation early this year. Its pretty fun to see all this, if you are a eurovision fan you know this is false like other news from those websites."

That's all I need to say now. but welll if you want to confirm all those 41 or 45 participants then go ahead. I am not discussing anymore here. And I won't read any further comments from CT Cooper either. Bye to all. Tony0106 (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why you are asking questions if you don't want to discuss this any more. I took the time to respond to your points, but if you don't want to read them, that's fine, and if you don't want to discuss this that's fine too - a consensus will simply have to made without your input. However, you are welcome to return if you change your mind.

On your question, well I will keep it short: There has never been clear consensus that ESCDaily is reliable either, but user comments are definitely not reliable, even if we shouldn't ignore them completely. CT Cooper · talk 18:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Tony, did you read the entire headline in the ESCDaily article, which reads "42 countries reportedly confirm; the Czech Republic to return?"? The headline itself is separated by a semicolon ";" which indicates that the question mark "?" relates to the Czech Republic, and not the first half of the headline. And like CT has rightfully pointed out, all editors have tolerated for 2 weeks now the fact that a revert by yourself went ahead before any overall consensus was made by everyone involve in this project, which could have resulted in edit warring, however, your revert is still in place, whilst a discussion is taking place to find mutual ground and resolution to this matter. Now if you're struggling to answer CT Coopers questions, then it should be finalized that your reversion is annulled. If you disagree with this, then we can always take matter further by filing a request at WP:MEDCAB, or even WP:DISPUTE to settle this matter once and for all. Wesley Mouse (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Like I said delete everything I have write in this page. Revert the changes. Put 41 participants I am not participating anymore in the Eurovision website. If you won't even pay attention to the comments by other escfans (I know they should not be used a source but is just to show what other people think on that list from news.az) and if you actually believe that the Czech Republic returned and there are already 41 confirmed participants. Go ahead. This is the end of the discussion. Is it clear now? Tony0106 (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If this discussion has run its course it will be archived like all the others. CT Cooper · talk 21:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Aye, it looks like it has ran a dead-end. Time to archive. Only thing now is, what happens next? Wesley Mouse (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this one of the longest discussions ever? Just out of curiosity.... --Spa-Franks (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It is certainly one of the longest related to Eurovision, yes. CT Cooper · talk 10:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well NovaSkola (talk · contribs) has re-added the content with alternative sources, which is a good thing in any case, as having variety in sourcing is a good idea. The next step would be to re-add the confirmed participants from the Azerbaijani news sources, if we are satisfied that they are reliable. CT Cooper · talk 10:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It sure is a bizarre start for me as a newbie to Wikipedia. But one that was very interesting nonetheless, and opened my eyes the different moods people can get into on the internet. Thank you CT Cooper for the barnstar too. As to re-adding the content, then we can either use News.az (again), or I can get the link from ESCDaily, which also shows the same list of "confirmed" participants. Wesley Mouse (talk) 10:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Using multiple sources to source content together is helpful if it is controversial, as in this case, so it might be a good idea to use both the ESCDaily and the News.az sources. CT Cooper · talk 10:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

OK that sounds reasonable in all respects. Here is that link from ESCDaily.com which may be used if you wish. Wesley Mouse (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I will add them tonight (in an hour or two) if nobody beats me to it. I'm planning to add Armenia under "Possible withdrawals" as the source is pretty clear that their participation is uncertain, while Morocco will stay as it is. It is also implied that the Czech Republic is uncertain, but if they are added as confirmed they can easily be removed later if necessary. CT Cooper · talk 20:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Despite what I said above, using a mixture of sources provided to be complicated, so I just used the ESC Daily source, plus a News.az article for the uncertainty over Armenia. CT Cooper · talk 22:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't read the whole discussion about this topic, so I don't know if this has already been said (But I think not): This whole controversy can be used as a test for the reliability of News.az. If some participan given as confirmed by News.az pulls out later, it would serve as a confirmation that they would be unreliable. If all confirmations given by News.az receive further confirmation by official sources, it would be a point about their reliability. (Although they are right now in a privileged position, since they are a news site from the host country, so they are more likely to have access to first-hand information than any other given year in which Azerbaijan doesn´t host the Contest). So, if we wait and see, it's possible to reach a conclusion about News.az's reliability according to how things happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.248.181.11 (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if a notable number of countries changed their minds it would be the evidence of unreliability that I would be looking for, however there have been cases of broadcasters changing their minds which even the most reliable of sources could never predict. The only problem is as you say, News.Az is in a privileged position for just this year, and it wasn't used much (if at all) before this contest and probably won't be afterwards, unless Azerbaijan wins again. CT Cooper · talk 11:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah man not even the EBU knows who is going to participate but news.az knows for sure. Is too bad that you and other users did not discuss this topic before. Otherwise we would be having a different story right now. And by the way Albania did not pull out they just say their participation was unclear for now. It is normal. It's August. Too early 190.37.35.244 (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't say Albania pulled out, it says their participation is in doubt. Also, what I said to Tony below applies to unregistered users as well. CT Cooper · talk 10:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Is Spain confirmed?

This must be a confirmation from Spanish TVE: [2]. They say "TVE has not expressed their thoughts about Falete's proposal or about the way they'll use to select the Spanish entry for 2012." I think that is a confirmation for Spain. What do we think about that? /Hollac16 (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say it most definitely shows that Spain and TVE will be in Baku next May, especially when it an official EBU site such as Eurovision.tv are reporting it. Wesley Mouse (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I would agree that this would pass as a confirmation. CT Cooper · talk 10:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not confirmed, this singer has only been offered, but it does not mean that Spain confirmed their participation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.216.218 (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Usually discussion from the broadcaster or the EBU about the entry is considered enough to confirm participation. There is an argument that can be made that we should only accept explicate statements such as "X country will participate" from reliable sources as a confirmation, per a strict interpretation of WP:NOR, but that would require a wider change in practice. CT Cooper · talk 18:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Spain it's not confirmed!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.216.218 (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I've already responded to your concerns. Unless you have a constructive reply to my response, repeating your opinion again is not going to achieve anything. CT Cooper · talk 20:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Then you should also put the UK confirmed. http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=37923&_t=spice_girls_reunite_for_eurovision — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.216.218 (talk) 11:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean, though as I said earlier there is an argument that it is safer not to accept either sources. CT Cooper · talk 11:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the information from Spain is based on an interview and the interviewee (in this case Falete) says he would like to represent Spain in Eurovision, nothing more. It is not official information from TVE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.216.218 (talk) 11:46 20 August 2011

The problem is not where the source comes from, it is the fact that Wikipedia must only state what sources say per the Wikipedia:No original research policy, in other words we should strictly speaking say a country is confirmed only if a reliable source states "X country will participate in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012" or something along those lines. Neither source does this, hence the issue. As I have said in a section above, there is nothing in policy which says we need sources direct from the broadcaster or the EBU. Anything which is considered reliable per the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources guideline is acceptable. CT Cooper · talk 11:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Greece

Greece has already confirmed their participation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.216.218 (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

http://www.oikotimes.com/eurovision/2011/08/08/restructure-by-the-end-of-the-month/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.216.218 (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The linked article isn't well written and doesn't read very well at all, but from what I can get out of it, there is no clear confirmation of participation for Greece. CT Cooper · talk 20:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how articles like this come about. That author can usually write somewhat understandable articles. Another reason why Oikotimes is on my use with caution list. Grk1011 (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Should Cyprus appear green on the map?

The color code for this stage is purple for confirmed participants and green for countries that have already chosen artist, song, or both. Since Cyprus already chosen an entrant, shouldn't it be put green on the map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.208.206 (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it should be green colored.74.131.99.14 (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've now made Cyprus green on the map. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Eurovision template

Could someone edit this? Spa-Franks (talk) 08:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Which Eurovision template are you referring to? CT Cooper · talk 14:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 --Spa-Franks (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What is that you want to be changed? CT Cooper · talk 10:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd need someone to monitor this and watch participants. --Spa-Franks (Talk) 13:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I already keep an eye on the template and update it when it is different from the article. CT Cooper · talk 15:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Is not Belarus confirmed?

Appeared to be confirmed before and not now.--84.125.216.218 (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The content was removed in this diff. The reasons for this is that the sources used were disliked, see #news.az is an unreliable source. CT Cooper · talk 14:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ukraine have confirmed

http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/17600 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.1.208 (talk) 10:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

done. --Redpower94 (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

UK Confirmation

Well done for finding this but it's iffy at best. I'd say it was a confirmation, just.

So could someone edit the map, and I'll do the numbers. --Spa-Franks (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Bulgaria have confirmed

http://escdaily.com/articles/20428 The source is BNT itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.50.109.26 (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Y Done CT Cooper · talk 21:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Italy/San Marino?

Do you think this is a confirmation for Italy and San Marino? I'm not sure if it's reliable... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.26.71 (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure either, but a source has just been added which covers both San Marino and Italy, so its addition may not be necessary. CT Cooper · talk 22:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Albania might not enter

Albania's entry is under question. Based on info from this site http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/17607 --NovaSkola (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a newer source and ESCToday is considered the most reliable of the Eurovision fan sites, so Albania should perhaps be removed from the participants list and placed in possible withdrawals. It is too late in the evening for me to do this before tomorrow morning (UTC). CT Cooper · talk 22:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No way man. ESCToday.com is crazy. If Guns.az and news.az said Albania will participate is because Albania will participate. What's wrong with you NovaSkola are you saying that 42 countries list from news.az is fake??? You're way out of your head. Tony0106 (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You know, that comment wasn't exactly constructive... — Ines(talk) 04:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Tony, if you want to contribute constructively then you will be welcome, but repeatedly putting sarcastic comments on this page in order to disrupt discussions and to voice your displeasure on the article content is a violation of WP:POINT and won't be tolerated indefinitely. CT Cooper · talk 10:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I will move Albania to the "Possible withdrawals" list now. The ESCDaily source is a week old, so keeping an eye out for new information in case the situation has changed is sensible, however I will be surprised if Albania do actually withdraw. I also should point out that we have historically treated the beginning of national selection procedures a confirmation, so even without the ESCDaily/News.az sources, Albania would still probably be listed as confirmed. CT Cooper · talk 10:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it true 21 to 40 confirmed...!?

Can it really be true that there are 40 countries that have confirmed participation? From 21 to 40 in less than a day? I just meant that last time it became such a large collection of confirmed countries it was taken back to the original again. Not even the map confirms all these countries! I just want to know about the source that indicates almost 20 countries confirmed is honest or not. And if it's not honest then revert to the old version. /Hollac16 (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It didn't go from 21 to 40 in a day - it has been building up for a while, but it was effectively frozen at around twenty for over two weeks while discussion was ongoing, and even two weeks ago it was in the thirties. See #news.az is an unreliable source. CT Cooper · talk 12:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

But I want to know if it is 40 that really has confirmed or if it is just 21? Is ESCDaily a safe source? /Hollac16 (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

ESC Daily has been used as a source for years, though there has never been a consensus on if it is reliable or not reliable. ESC Daily isn't the original source for this information anyway, that was several Azerbiajani news sites whose reliability has been discussed to death at #news.az is an unreliable source, however using an ESC Daily does have the benefit of scrutiny by an additional website. CT Cooper · talk 13:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

seems that norway is considering withdrawal

a norwegian supported building in baku was torn down which could cause issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 05:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If there are any sources about Norway's possible withdrawal please present them so they can be added to the article. CT Cooper · talk 10:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Albania have confirmed

Winner of 50 Festival of the song in the Albanian Public Television RTSH will participate in EusoSong 2012. The 50-festival held in December 2011. http://www.noa.al/2011/08/%E2%80%9Ceurovizion-2012%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%93-konfirmon-shqiperine-bashkon-%E2%80%98spice-girl%E2%80%99-shfaq-marokun-largon-armenine/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs) 14:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I have translated the source and it appears to be a confirmation. However, the ESCToday article is also very recent and there is clear consensus that ESCToday is reliable, meaning that it will need a reliable and clear source to override it. I will await a third opinion. CT Cooper · talk 19:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Malta have confirmed

Sourced from esctoday.com http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/17610 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.205.125 (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, this more specific source was added earlier today. CT Cooper · talk 21:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The map needs updating.

Now that the confirmed countries list counts 40 countries it would be convenient to update the map to reflect this, since it seems to be still on the 21-countries version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.198.78 (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Morocco and Czech Republic won´t return

From ESC Kaz.com:

Series of Azerbaijani press articles with claims of the lists of "confirmed countries" are totally fake. Usually, they are just based on Wikipedia lists and have no other sources. For example, lists of up to 25 confirmed countries were published in early August when EBU was not even yet accepting the confirmations still working on the rules and venue.

In particular, wiki-rumoured comeback of Czech Republic has been denied to us by ex-head of it's delegation: "There is no update on this, we will not be in", he told.

"I have never heard about any plans of SNRT participation in Eurovision Song Contest", informed ESCKAZ Director of International Relations of Moroccan broadcaster Fatima El Moumen, responsible also for collaboration with EBU and who was present at the latest EBU Assembly where SNRT has extended EBU membership for the next two years. 2M Marocco has applied for EBU membership in 2002 and has been denied it, thus SNRT is the only member channel from Morocco.

What do you think?.--WABBAW (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it is really not good that english Wikipedia have used a source that says that 40 countries have confirmed participation for 2012 now. As we all know this scenario would be impossible when I am 100% convinced that more than half of these "confirmed" is not even discussed the issue in their home countries. That is why I entitled annoyed that this has approved a source based on a previously non-faithful source saying that 40 (42) have confirmed participation. No, it's only 22 countries that have confirmed participation. I want this to everyone: wait until EBU or ESCToday have confirmed, not a source that says a source which says a soruce that says that country X will participate, however when EBU still wating for 25 december to announce this. /Hollac16 (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this was discussed thoroughly and you had plenty of time to comment. The article was left frozen for two weeks as a friendly gesture to allow discussion, and I'm not happy to find out that this time was not used wisely in some cases. If you are contributing to an article, it is a good idea to keep an eye on what is happening on the talk page. CT Cooper · talk 11:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not allowed to use sources that are sourced from Wikipedia, otherwise it is a circular reference. However, ESC Kaz's theory on what the Azerbaijani news sites are doing doesn't make sense though, since countries have only been added in response to sources, not the other round. ESC Kaz's view on Wikipedia's definition of a confirmed country is somewhat inaccurate and arguably contradicts policy. Wikipedia's actual definition is the same as all other content in encyclopedic articles - it has been reported by any reliable source. On the whole, this article from ESC Kaz reads more like an opinion piece more than a researched report, and given some clear inaccuracies, concerns can be raised about this sources previous status as "semi-reliable".

The claims of Czech Republic's return has been reported my multiple sources and did not originate from Wikipedia - at worst, Czech Republic should just be moved back to the "Possible returns" section. I did seriously consider leaving the Czech Republic where it is as even the ESC Daily source implies doubt on the issue. Morocco's possible return has also been reported by multiple reliable sources, so its inclusion at present is appropriate, even if ESC Kaz don't think they will return. CT Cooper · talk 11:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok listen to this: the soruce that says that 42 countries have confirmed participation have NOT been confirmed by ESCToday or EBU. The source says that gün.az says that 42 countries have confirmed. If Im right, that all sites with a .az-adresss lie about confirmed countries and does not tell the truth but just spread false rumors. However, I am totally convinced that it gets around 40 countries will compete in Baku, but there is no confirmation of this. But do what you want. I suggest in anyway that when ESCToday or EBU confirms one's participation as the source of ESCDaily replaced. Someone who is against it? /Hollac16 (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that more specific sources should be used where possible, since these will also often give details of national selections. The allegations that are being made here against a news site are serious. Do you have any evidence for them? They have been made previously in the #news.az is an unreliable source section, and addressed. CT Cooper · talk 21:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

OK to say that all sites with a .az-address are not to be trusted is being overly-judgemental is it not? Seeing as .az is the internet code for Azerbaijan, who coincidently, are the host country for 2012, then are we trying suggest that the news corps from the host nation haven't go a clue how to do journalism for an event that they are 200% excited about hosting for their first time. Its looking to me as if some people may be trying to reopen a can of worms in order to cause mass disruption once again. However, like CT Cooper has stated time and time again, if anyone, and I stress "ANYONE" can provide valid evidence that news.az or Guns.az are falsely publishing articles then please do so, but until then, then we should treat these websites as true to their words. Wesley Mouse (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh C'Mon CT Cooper you are the only one actually believing in the gun.az's list which is now more than clear that it was all made up. Albania has not confirmed and Czech Republic and Morocco has not even mention a possible return. What other proves do you need? ESCKaz.com is a source we must take seriously because they run the OGAE International Group and they have close ties with national broadcasters specially those from the former Eastern Bloc. I know they shouldn't have attacked Wikipedia but I guess they just didn't imagine that an Azerbaijani news agency could make up that list and I'm sure they didn't simply make up the list but possibly they just got the information from unreliable sources. So for now. I am sorry but I am going to have to bring down the list to 22 confirmed participants as they have been announced by their national broadcaster. I know I ended up the previous discussion but I did it because you were going to look for anything just to get your source regarded as reliable. But C'mon I don;t think we need more proves now. Tony0106 (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree entirely that the gün.az website's list of participating countries is false. For a start, it states that a number of countries to be participating, whereas we know that their participation is currently dubious (For example, Albania, and Czech Republic). Furthermore, it is unclear where the website has acquired its information from. To me, the article is currently an nreliable source to confirm a further 20 participants to this year's contest. We can't just use any site and then say "Well someone prove it is false before we don't use it." Especially when there is much evidence suggesting that the article is false. Lukex115 (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if Tony0106 has forgotten what he mentioned at 19:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC) on this talk page? However, if memory has collapsed on the editor, I shall gladly provide a quick reminder. I am not participating anymore in the Eurovision website. If you won't even pay attention to the comments by other escfans. Enough said! Wesley Mouse (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, a freeze to the article was put in place for 2 weeks, to allow other editors to participate in the discussion in order to produce a wider consensus and possible resolution. That was ample (if not generous) time to be given on such complexity of the case. CT Cooper asked Tony several questions over and over again, only to have Tony bypass them in his own way. I now feel it is time to take this whole matter to WP:MEDCAB, and I shall submit such application at some point today, as I'm getting sick and tired of the constant bickering and tittle-tattle about Azeri news agencies purposely falsifying news. Wesley Mouse (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have now submitted an application for mediation onto this reopened discussion about Azeri news agencies being false. The application can be found via HERE. Wesley Mouse (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I said I was not going to participate anymore in the article because there was no way I could defeat you on this issue. You and your friend CT Cooper were looking for a way to put the news.az list on the article no matter what. I gave a lot of reasons why we should not trust that list and you were always saying that I was attacking the azeri news agency. You simply wouldn't listen. But anyways I am back in the article now. I think I can do that. This is a free encyclopedia is not like I quit a job or something. Furthermore I don't think we need anymore evidence that the list is fake (Albania has not confirmed, Czech Republic won't return, Morocco is not even discussing this, ESCKaz.com arguments...) and simply a wide majority of the people won't buy it. You can go to the guidelines, terms of use, primary sources policy, secondary sources, whatever but you have to accept such list is fake. Stop saying we are attacking news.az. Like I mention before maybe they got that list from an unreliable source is not that the made up the whole story. Anyways I think we should not discuss the list anymore and simply don't bring it back again. It is fake. People don't believe it. Face it. Please. Let just confirm the countries as their national broadcasters speak. I really don't want to go into any further discussion. Tony0106 (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately Tony, a submission for mediation has now gone ahead, and as a result, I would prefer it if we wait for the mediation case to be heard, and discuss anything related to this via that page. I feel that the manner in which you barge about regarding this current discussion as very intimidating and almost to the point of bullying other editors. Please be respectful to ALL users, and avoid attacks of any magnitude. Wesley Mouse (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Again Tony, your claims about what has been said seem to be rather inaccurate. I specifically stated at one point: "I think I need to make clear here that I am not "friends" with any of the Azerbaijani news sites, and if they are found to be unreliable I will not be very unhappy - this discussion is not about "winning" or being proven right or wrong. The main issue I have is the process in which those that argue that Azerbaijani news sites are unreliable have reached their conclusion." You may approach content disputes differently, but I have made my view very clear on this issue. I do take note that the two week courtesy that was given earlier has not been returned.

As for the issue of attacking Azerbaijani news sites, accusing a news site of deliberately making-up stories, as has been claimed, is a very serious accusation is most certainly is an attack, in fact in some circumstances could be considered libellous. The issue is not if it is an attack, but if the attack on these sources is justified. The crux of this dispute is that "I don't believe it" isn't a reason, no matter how many editors say it, and decisions of source reliability should be made using WP:IRS, not just using one's personal judgement, again no matter how many editors turn up to say otherwise.

As for the evidence, very little of it has been credible up to now. I've already addressed ESCKaz, and to be frank I think the author of that site knows as much, if not less than we do, given that the theory given for the source of confirmed participants is definitely wrong. The closeness of this source to Wikipedia is also concerning, and I hope it was not written to influence content, as if it was that will raise WP:COI and WP:SELFPUB issues. Coverage of Morocco and the Czech Republic has not just occurred on Azerbaijani news sites, as is clear in the article history, and it is far from completely clear at this point that they will not be returning.

Thank you Wes for submitting the application for mediation, as I think it has got to the point of being necessary. I will be happy to co-operate and I hope all those involved will do so as well. CT Cooper · talk 18:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Am I the one bullying others here? You said it doesn't matter how many editors don't believe in the news.az list. Who is bullying who in here? So you simply don't care what other editors think you are conviced the news.az list is real and you are going to add it here anyways? Give me a break. That it why I am not going to discuss anything with you anymore. I am going to keep on updating this article as the national broadcasters announce their participation because that is how it's been done for many years. And that's all I am going to do. I am not going to waste my time. I am not discussing to you anything anymore. Thank you and goodbye. Tony0106 (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just read the article (again) on ESCKaz, and I must say, that even they have contradicted themselves throughout their own article. They state that "the lists are fake", but then go on to back-tracking on themselves by saying "In other cases, until a withdrawal or a comeback/debut are confirmed, it should be considered that all participating countries 2011 remain as part of European show." They also have a list of 42 nations as "confirmed for 2012" at the bottom of that particular article. Secondly, and most importantly, it is a common benefactor that Wikipedia will only add information to ANY article that has reliable and verified sourcing; so for such a site as ESCKaz to state that this is not the case is utter nonsense. Wikipedia was never the first website to state the comeback of the Czech Republic; as we all know by now that those details came from another website. Seeing as "we" as editors are by far aware how this website operates, then to allow such bombastic comments from ESCKaz to stand as gospel is just ridiculous. Anyhow, I await patiently for the mediation to commence, so that an overall consensus and resolution is finalized. Wesley Mouse (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Tony, I feel that you may be misconstruing comments made by 2 different editors here, and mixing them up to make it look like each respective editor said the other's comments. You state that I (Wesley Mouse) said "it doesn't matter how many editors don't believe in the news.az list". Those words were actually posted by CT Cooper, and not myself. Also what gives you the right to assume that I have ever thought that I "simply don't care what other editors think you are conviced the news.az list is real". Those thoughts have never entered my head; I have, and always will, remain diplomatic to this, and remain open-minded in respect of the validity of the evidence from any .az website, until (as you put it) an EBU or National Broadcasters contradicts these websites. We as editors should be treating any website or news agencies webpages, as reliable, unless we have solid proof and facts that they are indeed unreliable. To constantly state that they are publishing lies is very libellous Tony, and if such sites were aware of your accusations, then I wouldn't like to be on the receiving end of legal suits chasing my behind to the deepest depths of Earth. Wesley Mouse (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You guys need to cool it. There is now a MedCab case opened, therefore there should be NO edit warring. The article should stay the way it was as decided before (in the previous discussion). Tony, if your concerns are found valid, then, and only then, should you proceed to edit the article they way you wish. Grk1011 (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree and comply with what Grk1011 has said... with that in mind, then the revert that Tony0106 has just done (again) needs to be annulled and the article put back to how it was prior to Tony0106's constant edit warring. Wesley Mouse (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have stuck firmly to 1RR throughout this dispute, and that is not likely to change.

Tony, that is not what I said at any point. Let me quote myself again. "The crux of this dispute is that "I don't believe it" isn't a reason, no matter how many editors say it, and decisions of source reliability should be made using WP:IRS, not just using one's personal judgement, again no matter how many editors turn up to say otherwise." My points was that policies and guidelines apply on this article regardless of how many editors turn-up to say otherwise. This also extends to verifiability, and the core principle of this project that it functions by verifiability, not truth. That means we decide content based on verifiable evidence, not what editors think is true, a principle which contradicts the notion that we can exclude content based purely on "I don't believe it" reasons. I'm not saying I'm going to insist on including .az sources no matter what, more that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that any local consensus cannot override core policy on these issues. I will re-quote myself a third time here to clarify the point: ""I think I need to make clear here that I am not "friends" with any of the Azerbaijani news sites, and if they are found to be unreliable I will not be very unhappy - this discussion is not about "winning" or being proven right or wrong. The main issue I have is the process in which those that argue that Azerbaijani news sites are unreliable have reached their conclusion."

I reject the accusation that I am "bullying". All I have done is discuss this issue with you in the interest of resolving the dispute, and I have repeatedly given way to you over the content of the article. If you don't want to discuss this further, that's your decision, though I will say now given your intent to continue editing the article - edit warring is not an acceptable alternative to discussion.

Finally, I acknowledge the criticism against Azerbaijani news sites has moderated from them engaging in deliberate deception to just using dodgy sourcing, and this is welcomed, given that there was and is still is no evidence of the former. CT Cooper · talk 22:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

40 countries confirmed?!!!

A few days ago there were 19 confirmed and now you put 40? Are you sure? --84.125.216.218 (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The article was effectively frozen at around twenty for a few weeks while disputes over sourcing were discussed. Now these have been resolved, there was a sudden jump in the number of countries of Wikipedia's own making. Please see the sections above. CT Cooper · talk 13:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

further map changes required

Could somebody please update the map to reflect the apparent 40 participants we now seem to have confirmed?74.131.99.14 (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Albania is not withdrawing simply is yet to confirm

The ESCToday.com article does not imply that Albania is considering withdrawing it simply says that confirmation is yet to be officialized by the RTSH, the Albanian public broadcaster, and that there are chances that the song will be chosen in another way rather than the regular Festivali i Këngës. Hence can not be considered as a possible withdrawal. A possible withdrawal should state a reason and not simply the way they are choosing their song. Regard for example Portugal's possible withdrawal as the broadcaster, RTP, might not be able to participate anymore if its privatized. As per the information from Armenia and Morocco well it comes from news.az and it was said that we either use news.az for everything and not for certain news. Hence the Armenian and Moroccan links are invalid to use now. No further discussion. Tony0106 (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Tony please refer to Grk1011's clear instructions to you, as per #Morocco_and_Czech_Republic_won.C2.B4t_return. You are to leave the main article as it was, until an official decision has been made via MedCab. If you wish to discuss this matter further, then please add your clear opinions/reasons at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-08-29/Eurovision Song Contest 2012. If you continue to ignore these requests by participating in an edit war, then I shall pursue an official complaint via WP:RFC. Wesley Mouse (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Also if you read that article for which you attached the ESCToday link to, it reads part way through, "At the moment it’s not clear if Albania will participate in Eurovision 2012. Another possibility is that the broadcaster will use another system to choose the Albanian representative". As it is "unclear whether they will participate or not" then it justifies as being added to "possible" withdrawal, until further clarification is determined. After all, "possible" is very self-explanatory, as long as we state WHY it is being added as a possible, which is what HAD been done before you removed the piece in the first place. Wesley Mouse (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It is unclear that Albania will participate as it is unclear that Italy, Serbia, Russia, etc.. and other 20+ countries will participate. I don't find a reason to put it as a "possible withdrawal" simply because the article does not say that they are considering withdrawing. As I mentioned before. I have already participated in the mediation. What else is next now? Tony0106 (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

As Grk1011 instructed, not to mention the warning you received for edit warring (as shown here User_talk:Tony0106#Three_revert_rule_warning), along with several warnings for copyright violations on Eurovision related wiki-articles, then I feel that you must comply to what is being asked of you until MedCab has been completed, regardless as to how long that process may take. Wesley Mouse (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but I did not understand anything that you or Grk1011 said. What warning? I did not receive any. I have a question now is that actually for the Albania possible withdrawal thing or is it for the 40 participants' list. I swear I'm not being sarcastic I honesty don't understand what you guys want from the "edit warring" thing. I did not see any instructions from Grk1011. What I understood is that I must state a reason on why did I remove Albania from the possible withdrawals and well I gave my reason. Now you're talking about an edit warring and I honesty don't know what you mean. I really don't know what you guys want me to do right now. So explain yourself a little bit better. English is not my first language as you may have noticed so I need further explanation. Tony0106 (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I will gladly help you to understand things in Layman's terms. Grk1011 posted You guys need to cool it. There is now a MedCab case opened, therefore there should be NO edit warring. The article should stay the way it was as decided before (in the previous discussion). Tony, if your concerns are found valid, then, and only then, should you proceed to edit the article they way you wish. Grk1011 (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC) via here. Also I supplied a link to your own user talk page which takes you directly to a WP:3RR warning issued by User:CieloEstrellado (as shown here). Your very own talk page also includes several warnings regarding violations of copyright and using "orphaned images/content" in your contributions to articles within WP:ESC. On August 29 alone, you have breached the WP:3RR by engaging in an edit war, by reverting a total of 10 times in the space of 24 hours, despite you being told to leave the article alone while a dispute is in progress. You are already aware that an application to MedCab has been made, and that can take some time before any of us know the outcome; the case is new, and no mediator has been assigned to it. So it is vital that you refrain from engaging any further in edit warring on the ESC2012 article, if you wish to continue to work on any articles within Wikipedia for the foreseeable future. Policies are in place for a reason, and you appear to be ignoring these, and the warnings given to you on your own talk page, and as a result could be facing a block from editing, or even a full block on your account. I hope you understand what I have stated here Tony. Wesley Mouse (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No I am not understanding anything. You want me to put the participant's list back to 40 countries? I am not doing that. You are not taking care what other websites and other editors have say about the list? Is there no violation to the policy? And edit warring sometime happened for the very same reason it's happened this year: Confirming countries from whichever source. But this year it's been worse because you guys are confirming a return from a country (Czech Republic) that has not mentioned anything, a return from Morocco that has been absent for 32 years and a list of 40 participants in August. I am sorry I am not reverting back the article to 40 participating countries. It makes no sense. Tony0106 (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Tony, firstly you may think that in deleting all old posts from your talk page is good, so that nobody can see what WAS there, but the deletion is still visible in the file history, and people can still check on there. Why you are attempting to hide all your warnings posted on your talk page baffles me, what is there to hide? I'm sure that a user should archive old posts on their talk pages, and NOT delete information. But regardless of that, deleted info is still traceable.

Secondly, Grk1011 instructed you to leave the article to show what was decided as appropriate, which would be back to the 40 participants (correct me if I'm wrong there GRK1011). The three-revert rule policy even states that edit warring MUST NOT be done while a dispute is in progress. As a dispute about any of the .az websites is in progress, then your reverts are breaching this exact rule. I have tried everything to help you understand these policies, and why it is important to stick to them, but you still keep changing rules to suit your own ways. I therefore have no other option but to take submit a request for formal action against you. Wesley Mouse (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I am not hiding anything. I'm not stupid. I know people can check my page through history. I decided to delete it because there was way too much information tracking back from the year 2006 and I just wanted to have the new stuff so I can check on it better because I had a lot of messages that I didn't even know they existed because I stopped checking my page about 2 years ago because there was too much stuff and I did not know I could delete all information. So since you guys are telling me to check my talk page I decided to take a look at it once again. That it was I deleted the previous information you are free to search everything you want from me. I always do that. I do that to my email inbox as well. I don't see any problem with it. And no I am not reverting back the page to 40 participants. You also need to see what other editors have say about it in this discussion page and you should see what others think about it in other webpages as well. It's only you and CT Cooper who want to believe in that list and I am actually shocked that Grk1011 find it reliable as well because he has been working for the Eurovision pages for years but well. I said it again. I am not reverting back my changes to the 40 participant's list. It's enough. Tony0106 (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't picked a "side" yet nor have I even seen the articles in question. My input was solely from a policy-based view. The fact is that an article from a website has reported something, but no other article has disputed it on a "line-by-line" basis (for example claiming a "participating" is definitely not taking part). You claim that it's absurd that the Czech Republic are confirmed because they have made no announcement yet, but on the other hand, there are no articles claiming that they will not participate; until that happens I do not believe we have a choice but to include what reputable news sites are reporting. Whether the site is reputable is another argument, but by reading the comments above, I believe it has passed the various criteria to be a reliable source (such as an editorial board, etc).

As for the edit warring going on, what is the issue? Tony, is it so bad if in the end it turns out that some of these countries aren't participating? Will you be personally embarrassed? Will people turn away from Wikipedia to get their Eurovision news? Our mission isn't to please the fans or be the place to go for breaking news. This is an encyclopedia and we just report what we see. Just be patient, stay calm, and look at things from others' point of view and everything will get sorted out eventually. In the grand scheme of things, how can it hurt? Grk1011 (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Now you are the one being sarcastic but nobody is attacking at you. And according to what you just said there is no need to verify a source because "we report what we see". Ok so I am going to create a blog and say the United States is participating and we can put it in here because this an "ecyclopedia and we report what we see". Give me a break. Tony0106 (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't being sarcastic. I was trying to be supportive and trying to bring out the humor in the situation. By we report what we see, I mean by reputable sources. I thought I made that clear by saying that other users have pointed out how these websites pass the various criteria for inclusion. Grk1011 (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The other users are just CT Cooper and Wesley Mouse. Tony0106 (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I also addressed this. Your only issues with these websites seem to be that you disagree with what they've published, not that somehow they are an unreliable source. Grk1011 (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Correction... CT Cooper, myself, as well as NovaSkola; have all noted that those sites have undergone serious credibility checks, and have passed the various criteria to be a reliable source (such as an editorial board, etc). This is the whole point we've been trying to tell you. There is nothing to show these websites are fake, they all have accreditation on their websites to show they are legitimate online newspapers, reporting news to which they have investigated to their readers. And as that information is being reported, then there is nothing wrong in using them as sourced material as per WP:NEWSORG, which allows Online News Agencies to be used as sourced material. How much clearer does any of us need to be here? We're being clear with our comments and explanations, and trying our best to help you understand the main issues in order to resolve the dispute. I fail to see what else we can do now, other then allow the MedCab run its course, and wait to see what happens from that outcome. Wesley Mouse (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The number of users isn't that important, it is the arguments that matter, though I have to point out that it is clearly not just me and Wes that object to Tony's removal of content in the article. I do acknowledge the point of view that the number of confirmed countries is unusually high and hence a little suspicious, but I'm afraid judging article content based on whether editors believe or don't believe is a bad way of writing an encyclopedia, and opens the flood gates to many problems, and that is why it contradicts policy. Again, I recognise that the allegations against Azerbaijani news sites has been watered down, but the case against them is still weak on the whole. Grk1011 is right that there needs to be a sense of perspective here, and as someone who has previously been hot on sourcing, I think this has been got very overblown. The content is only temporary and it will all be over when the EBU releases the participants list. In past years we have had to remove countries that are turning-up after all, and if we have to do that again it is not a massive disaster. CT Cooper · talk 11:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

On the side note, I'm not following the justification for removing all content on Albania. ESCToday have clearly expressed doubt on their participation, and we should be reporting information which comes from reliable source such as ESCToday. The justification for their removal, "Albania is not withdrawing simply is yet to confirm", seems to miss that the article never said they are withdrawing - more that it is possible that they may do. It is clear to me that the article expresses doubts on if they will participate in 2012, and gives reasons why, which implies a possible withdrawal. As for Armenian and Morocco, I've already said there are other sources discussing Morocco's return and the issues with Armenia's participation. I consider the "all or nothing" justification to be distorting what I said, given that there is no consensus that "nothing" is the correct option here, and even if there was the content should be replaced by other sources, rather than removed, in order to be helpful for readers. CT Cooper · talk 11:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Eurovision.tv and ESCToday.com have both reported today about the "Eurovision Government" (better known as the Reference Group to fans). At the bottom of both articles reads "Some 40 nations are expected to be represented, of which several have already started their search for a potential winner." Looks to me as though the EBU do know about the 40-something nations expressing interest (for better way of putting it, to avoid the dispute of "confirmation"). Wesley Mouse (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eurovision Song Contest 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130122000000/http://www.eurovision.tv/page/history/by-year/contest?event=1593#Scoreboard to http://www.eurovision.tv/page/history/by-year/contest?event=1593#Scoreboard

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eurovision Song Contest 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325184943/http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=154140 to http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=154140
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120122032535/http://abc.az:80/eng/news_01_09_2011_57201.html to http://abc.az/eng/news_01_09_2011_57201.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://escdaily.com/articles/29118
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110503185041/http://www.un.org/russian/documen/scresol/res1993/res822.htm to http://www.un.org/russian/documen/scresol/res1993/res822.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Eurovision Song Contest 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110817135117/http://abc.az/eng/news/main/54165.html to http://abc.az/eng/news/main/54165.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522054754/http://abc.az/eng/news/main/54292.html to http://abc.az/eng/news/main/54292.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321165509/http://www.eurovision.tv/upload/press-downloads/2012/ESC_2012_public_version_Rules_ENG.pdf to http://www.eurovision.tv/upload/press-downloads/2012/ESC_2012_public_version_Rules_ENG.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309214923/http://www.eurovision.tv/page/baku-2012/about/shows/participants to http://www.eurovision.tv/page/baku-2012/about/shows/participants
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120605114444/http://www.eurovision.tv/page/history/by-year/contest?event=1573 to http://www.eurovision.tv/page/history/by-year/contest?event=1573
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140826110418/http://www.eurovisionhouse.nl/bdaward.php to http://www.eurovisionhouse.nl/bdaward.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090429084544/http://eurovision.france3.fr/programme.php to http://eurovision.france3.fr/programme.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Eurovision Song Contest 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120605192634/http://www.escdaily.com/reference-group-baku-bound/ to http://www.escdaily.com/reference-group-baku-bound/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513050659/http://escxtra.com/2012/02/tickets-on-sale-from-28th-february/ to http://escxtra.com/2012/02/tickets-on-sale-from-28th-february/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120619004315/http://www.eurovision.tv/page/baku-2012/about/organisers/reference-group to http://www.eurovision.tv/page/baku-2012/about/organisers/reference-group
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120530015617/http://www.turquoisebranding.com/2012/work/01/25/eurovision-2012-light-your-fire/ to http://www.turquoisebranding.com/2012/work/01/25/eurovision-2012-light-your-fire/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110918044029/http://company.azercell.com/en/press-room/press-releases/2011/20407/ to http://company.azercell.com/en/press-room/press-releases/2011/20407/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111022034419/http://escdaily.com/articles/24348 to http://www.escdaily.com/articles/24348
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111128123439/http://escdaily.com/articles/26649 to http://escdaily.com/articles/26649
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111129144549/http://www.gun.az/eurovision2012/10234 to http://www.gun.az/eurovision2012/10234
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120516144215/http://gun.az/eurovision2012/38379 to http://www.gun.az/eurovision2012/38379
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bhrt.ba/eurosong2012/v19.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120520180937/http://www.cybc.com.cy/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3405%3A57-eurovision-&catid=52%3A2009-08-27-10-36-13&Itemid=55 to http://www.cybc.com.cy/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3405%3A57-eurovision-&catid=52%3A2009-08-27-10-36-13&Itemid=55
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120523155022/http://satumaa.yle.fi/euroviisut/2012-05-08/eurovision-laulukilpailun-42-kilpailubiisia-lauantai-illan-esikatselumaratonis to http://satumaa.yle.fi/euroviisut/2012-05-08/eurovision-laulukilpailun-42-kilpailubiisia-lauantai-illan-esikatselumaratonis
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140107162646/http://ruv.is/frett/evrovisjon/hellulagt-i-lakkskom-i-baku to http://ruv.is/frett/evrovisjon/hellulagt-i-lakkskom-i-baku
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120521175424/http://port.ro/pls/w/tv.channel?i_ch=10001&i_date=2012-05-22&i_where=1 to http://port.ro/pls/w/tv.channel?i_ch=10001&i_date=2012-05-22&i_where=1
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.oikotimes.com/eurovision/2011/10/13/sbs-to-air-eurovision-2012/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)