| Revision as of 01:05, 14 May 2024 editPicturePerfect666 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,788 edits →Do we need "the inclusion of Israel" paragraph on the top page?: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:22, 3 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,309,962 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024/Archive 5) (bot | ||
| (521 intermediate revisions by 72 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{talkpage}} | {{talkpage}} | ||
| {{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=a-i}} | {{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=a-i}} | ||
| {{Controversial}} | |||
| {{ITN talk|14 May|2024|oldid=1223728433}} | {{ITN talk|14 May|2024|oldid=1223728433}} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= | {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= | ||
| Line 7: | Line 8: | ||
| {{WikiProject Television|importance=Mid}} | {{WikiProject Television|importance=Mid}} | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Annual readership|scale=log}} | |||
| {{Top 25 Report|May 5 2024|May 12 2024}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 5 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 5 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(30d) | ||
| |archive =Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024/Archive %(counter)d | |archive =Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Request for comments: votes received and how by Israel == | |||
| == Do we need "the inclusion of Israel" paragraph on the top page? == | |||
| {{closed rfc top|1=Consensus agreed to include coverage of campaigning for votes for Israel within the Controversies section. ] (]) 13:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| Should the "Controversies and incidents" section contain a section on Israel votes and media reports in connection to this which relate to more individuals than expected or individuals which would not usually have voted. ] (]) 16:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Please note that as a prominent controversy is related to the Israel-Hamas war, it is subject to ]. Accordingly, '''accounts with fewer than 500 edits and 30 days' tenure may not participate'''. Any comment violating ARBECR may be removed by any editor, and '''edit warring will not be tolerated'''. Please keep the discussion respectful: comment on the matter in question, not on other editors. Thank you. | |||
| Controversies have their own topic in this article. I don't understand why Israel's participation has to get special mention on the top page. Usually the top page only includes dates, location, and the withdrawing and returning countries. "The inclusion of Israel" should be removed. It is right after Romania's decision to opt-out. What does Romania opting out have to do with "the inclusion of Israel"? ] (]) 03:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 17:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Include''' per the already above section ] (]) 16:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Include''' as it definitely impacted the results. ] (]) 18:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can you prove that with reliable neutral verifiable sources? If not it can't be implied through wikivoice. ] (]) 18:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Didn't mean to prove it or to have that exact wording in the article, but when there ''are'' neutral verifiable sources that many non-Eurovision fans voted, and the fact that every vote counts, it is extremely likely that that was the case. Again, not necessarily saying that should be in the article though ] (]) 18:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::How do you or the publications for that matter know they are "non-Eurovision fans"? Additionally wikivoice cannot go on speculation re: "it is extremely likely that that was the case". It feels like ] is being employed and potentially so ] activities. It also feels like ] to come to the conclusions that they have. ] (]) 19:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The sources are reliable and citing officials from the israeli government. All confirm without a doubt that a campaign for votes happened. This is not subjective. This is factual. The matter at hand here is to decide whether to mention this campaign in the article and a former discussion has already been made. ] (]) 19:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There is no way to know "All confirm without a doubt that a campaign for votes happened. This is not subjective. This is factual" That all falls under ] as it has drawn a conclusion from them which is not necessarily one supported widely. It draws the reader to conclude the votes for Israel are some how tainted or that rules were broken. Which a non-neutral POV. | |||
| ::::::Nowhere is it stated any actual rules were broken, or that mass voting by bots happened or similar. It just seems people in other countries got messages about the Israel entry and decided to exercise a vote this year. It doesn't feel like anything more here, the claims additionally feel extremely ]. ] (]) 19:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Once again, the matter at hand is whether or not israel had a voting campaign. And the answer is undoubtedly yes, the several sources provided in the former section confirm it, citing a government official. The impact on the voting is not the topic of our discussion. ] (]) 19:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The issue I have is a misuse of wikivoice and the non neutral implications of the section. ] (]) 22:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Once again, as long as we use the sources provided in the former section, the inclusion won't cause a problem as we will just be relaying a fact: Israel campaigned for votes. It is factual. The fact that you see non neutral implications behind this type of sentence is problematic because there is not. And if you think that there's an indirect implication that israel got their points from this campaign, read the sources and ponder one minute... because isn't that what our sources exactly imply already? Including the israeli source ynet. ] (]) 05:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::If all of the RS support there being a campaign to mobilise votes for Israel for political reasons then I don't see how it's an issue to state it in Wikivoice. ] (]) 13:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::] Not some nefarious political campaign at the heart of why Israel polled well. Only having Israel is the big bad wolf style article belies the more benign and boring reasons set out in the article above. Also remember how in 2016 Eurovision changed to its current format of voting because it was all neighbours voting for each other. This is a storm in a teacup to claim that people voting en mass and multiple times is new. it also belies that mundane reasons exist as well as the nice sexy claims of the big bad Israel trying to rig the contest. | |||
| :::::::::: ] (]) 14:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::That RS doesn't say there was no campaign, it explains how low support in numbers for a contestant can still result in a unusually good result for them. If anything the source explains how the voting system and the nature of public votes could enable a campaign.{{pb}}{{tq|1=Second, we have to take into consideration 'motivated reasoning'. "We see this in politics when it comes to turnout in elections and turnout in referendums", explains Cunningham. "When we see turnout in referendums become very low we notice that the results become quite skewed. If turnout in a referendum gets lower than 35% the people who are more motivated, more interested, tend to influence the outcome a little bit more".}}<br> ] (]) 14:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::No source is going to say “there was no campaign” that is like asking for proof of a negative. What it shows is not all RS are singing the same hymn on Israel and there are plenty of other valid reasons for the televote results beyond the claims of what are essentially Israel rigged it. I think there is a potential blinding to stuff outside of the Israel contentiousness when boring and benign reasons also exist. ] (]) 14:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::If it is to be included the boring and benign reasons need the same weight on the section as the juicy and sensational claims. ] (]) 14:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Thing is, once again, these are not claims. They're facts. '''Several sources''', including some coming directly from Israel, cite an '''Israeli government official and diplomat''' who stated the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs campaigned. Some go as far as detailing they shot videos in at least ten languages demanding people to vote and the whole thing getting 14+ million views. Facts. Not claims. ] (]) 14:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::Claims of “these are facts” are unhelpful as you don’t know that, no one here does. All anyone knows is what is reported so a better statement is “as reported in ” not “these are facts” the latter implies infallibility of the sources. Additionally alternate reasons in an RS has been presented. Wikivoice cannot only give one side, as it currently seems to claim Israel votes were nefarious as opposed to the boring and benign reasons which are also a possibility for the televote results. ] (]) 14:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{outdent|13}} No one can know 100% and there are no infallible sources, but we still write statements of fact in Wikivoice. We don't keep repeating "According to Charles Darwin, humans evolved from apes" any time we talk about evolution, even if plenty of people pushing ] theories think it will be disproven any day now.{{pb}}If there's RS reporting that there was a government-sanctioned campaign that didn't actually exist then there would be plenty of reason for other RS to report on how that isn't true or it was uncertain/unclear. If there was a significant disagreement on whether there was or wasn't a government-sanctioned campaign then we should be more careful about using wikivoice. In the absence of any reliable or significant claim that a campaign didn't exist I don't see why we can't state it in wikivoice. ] (]) 18:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I do not think that the Irish source from a professor is a fringe theory. ] (]) 19:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thing is we are talking about a campaign for votes. Which according to numerous sources, definitely happened. Which is worth inclusion. We are not talking about how israel got their results, which would very much indeed necessitate all possibilities to be accounted for. We are talking specifically about whether or not to mention the campaign. Which, once again, did happen according to several sources. No matter its influence, the existence of this campaign has been established. So your Irish Independent reference is irrelevant in this specific context. ] (]) 16:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Include''' per others and the already-had discussions ] }</b>]] 20:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Include''', obviously. We've already been over this. This is not a proper RfC. See ], in particular ]. RfCs are for getting broader community input to help resolve matters for which no consensus can be determined after extensive "local" discussion. But there is no failure to come to a consensus here. "One editor doesn't like the result" is not a consensus failure, and RfCs are not for ] in hopes of getting an answer one might like better. <small>(Aside: RfCs are also for seeking broad community input, from the start, on a proposal that has site-wide implications, like changing a policy or introducing a new guideline. But that is of course not applicable to a minor discussion like this.)</small> <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 23:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''include''', as I have mentioned in older discussion. A confirmed vote campaign with government involvement taking place in a song contest with huge and international cultural impact is an incidence of major importance, and something uncommon for the ESC. Inclusion can be warranted, in my opinion. ] (]) 16:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|] –] <small>(])</small> 20:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| :'''Do not include''' since his is not new nor unheard of. Participating countries frequently advertise their contest entries, and the reason why it's done more heavily this year has far more to do with the voting window opening early than anything else. Either way, it's not provable without a reasonable doubt, and has no precedent, so should not be included. ] (]) 05:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| :'''Include'''. The issue is not that participating countries advertise their contest entries. That's a no-brainer. The issue is that a government is involved with and admitted that there is a campaign by Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs to vote for them. ''''''' | |||
| {{hat|] –] <small>(])</small> 20:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::As provided under the '''"ESC Title and Values"''' section of the , specifically under the '''"Non-Political Event"''' subsection, " Participating Broadcasters shall be responsible...to make sure that the ESC shall in no case be ''politicized'' and/or instrumentalized and/or otherwise brought into disrepute in any way." As what @] have already mentioned, we are specifically talking about whether or not to mention the campaign, which have already been established (sources , , and ). "No matter its influence, the existence of this campaign has been established." ] (]) 07:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::To be honest, I think that the amount of promotion for this entry was, indeed, something new and unheard of. At some point, you couldn't watch a Youtube video without an ad popping up. ] (]) 11:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| :'''Include''' per the previous discussion. Also, as SMcCandlish mentioned, I'm still confused about the need to open a RfC when consensus was already pretty clear. ] (] · ]) 23:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Include:''' The exact wording to be added hasn't been fully discussed, but it is clear that there is support for including in the earlier discussion. --] (]) 05:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|] –] <small>(])</small> 20:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| :'''Include:''' As others have mentioned there is support for including this ] (]) 12:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| {{closed rfc bottom}} | |||
| == Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2024 == | |||
| :@] In normal circumstances such a line would not be included, however Israel's participation this year has generated heaps of media coverage and controversy that it would be unfeasible to leave it out from lead entirely. Other experienced editors may be able to provide further reasoning for this though. ] (]) 07:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{Edit extended-protected|Eurovision Song Contest 2024|answered=yes}} | |||
| ::Yes. I would like more reasoning. I understand that Israel's participation has created controversy. But I cannot find other articles where the controversy is mentioned in the top page. So yes, I would like to read more reasoning. Why other controversies are not on the top page on other years? ] (]) 04:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Add the following paragraph to the end of the "Disqualification of the Netherlands from the final" section, they explain challenges from Serbia, Slovenia, Portugal, Croatia, France, Norway, Spain, as well as a subsequent criminal investigation that was dismissed today. | |||
| :::Yeah take it out it’s undue weight and npov ] (]) 18:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Not really, all every media outlet has been writing about is Israel's inclusion — ] ] 19:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It is not needed as this is not a news site. Media ink spilt does not mean Wikipeida follows suit. ] (]) 01:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| (taken from ]) | |||
| == More information on Eric Saade's keffiyeh == | |||
| Ivan Simonović, a member of ], called the disqualification "unfair", while Slovenia's broadcaster ] demanded clarifications from the EBU.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.rts.rs/vesti/smatracnica/5443503/pesma-evrovizije-je-nakon-malmea-na-prekretnici--od-koga-zavisi-na-koju-ce-stranu-prevagnuti.html |title=Песма Евровизије је након Малмеа на прекретници – од кога зависи на коју ће страну превагнути |trans-title=Eurovision Song Contest after Malmö at a turning point – who does it depend on where it goes |date=2024-05-18 |access-date=2024-05-18 |work=] |first=Ivan |last=Simonović}}</ref> Portugal, Croatia, France, Norway and Spain also demanded explanations from the EBU regarding incidents that occurred during the contest.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-05-15 |title=RTP pede à Eurovisão uma reunião para esclarecer incidentes |trans-title=RTP asks Eurovision for a meeting to clarify incidents |url=https://www.rtp.pt/noticias/cultura/rtp-pede-a-eurovisao-uma-reuniao-para-esclarecer-incidentes_v1571563 |access-date=2024-05-15 |publisher=] |language=pt |archive-date=15 May 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240515113055/https://www.rtp.pt/noticias/cultura/rtp-pede-a-eurovisao-uma-reuniao-para-esclarecer-incidentes_v1571563 |url-status=live }}</ref> The ] launched an investigation into the incident on the day it was reported, and the case was subsequently handed to the ].<ref>{{Cite web |last=van Eenennaam |first=Alexander |date=2024-07-15 |title=Verhoren in zaak Joost Klein afgerond: Nederlands OM brengt Zweedse collega's deze week op de hoogte |trans-title=Interrogations in Joost Klein case completed: Dutch Public Prosecution Service to inform Swedish colleagues this week |url=https://www.ad.nl/show/verhoren-in-zaak-joost-klein-afgerond-nederlands-om-brengt-zweedse-collega-s-deze-week-op-de-hoogte~aa27bb1d/ |access-date=2024-07-15 |website=Algemeen Dagblad}}</ref> The investigation was closed on 12 August, with the senior prosecutor Fredrik Jönsson citing a lack of evidence to prove that Klein "was capable of causing serious fear or that {{om|the man|sub=he|br=y}} had any such intention".<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-08-12 |title=Investigation concerning illegal threats in Malmö has been closed {{!}} Swedish Prosecution Authority |url=https://via.tt.se/pressmeddelande/3571443/investigation-concerning-illegal-threats-in-malmo-has-been-closed?publisherId=3235541 |access-date=2024-08-12 |website=via.tt.se |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Blomberg |first=Linnea |date=2024-08-12 |title=Förundersökningen mot Joost Klein läggs ner |trans-title=The preliminary investigation against Joost Klein is closed |url=https://www.aftonbladet.se/a/Rz5jkJ |access-date=2024-08-12 |website=Aftonbladet |language=sv}}</ref> ] (]) 20:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Eric Saade responded to the statement by the EBU with a quite effective response, I suppose it may be relevant information to add to the current section on his performance. Translated roughly, he says that he got the keffiyeh from his father during his youth and it was unimaginable that it would be considered a political symbol one day, and it would be like calling the traditional Swedish 'Dalahästen' a political symbol. He goes on to say the stance/statement by the EBU is plain racism and refers to this years' slogan: United by Music. https://www.svt.se/kultur/har-kuppar-saade-hade-palestinasjal-runt-handen ] (]) 07:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : |
{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> with minor edits for ] — ] ] 15:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC) | ||
| {{rlt}} | |||
| ::The above context has been removed during a recent pruning. I believe it could and should be re-added succinctly. | |||
| ::— ] (]) 22:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2024 == | |||
| == Serbian broadcaster == | |||
| They had 25 mins of the show cut off. This may have caused Poland and Iceland not to qualify. ] (]) 11:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This is already present in a note in the "Broadcasts" section. Unless the EBU comments, though, it's not our place to say that the two countries might have gotten less votes for that. ~ ] (]) 11:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2024 (2) == | |||
| {{edit extended-protected|Eurovision Song Contest 2024|answered=yes}} | {{edit extended-protected|Eurovision Song Contest 2024|answered=yes}} | ||
| Please change Ukraine televote in Semi-Final 1 from blank to 5 points to Australia. ] (]) 13:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| As in past years, when some countries broke their qualification strike or qualified to the final after a long time, that was detailed, so in this year case, Ireland’s, Latvia’s and Georgia’s qualification after 6, 7 and 7 years shall be highlighted. ] (]) 21:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{not done}} Please explain what changes you would like to be made. ] (]) 16:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == “Weaponising antisemitism” == | |||
| Is it really fair to link to the page on the weaponising of antisemitism for Netenyahu’s claims of antisemitism. Surely it would be better to say that he thinks it’s antisemitism but others have accused him of weaponising it? To link directly to it makes it seem like fact rather than opinion. ] (]) 01:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :He brought up antisemitism as a response to human rights protests. Kinda speaks for itself. ~ ] (]) 07:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Still very much just your opinion being presented as fact. ] (]) 19:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == “Controversies” == | |||
| This article is only going to be bogged down if it keeps in it a ‘controversies’ section. The whole section is always a POV can of worms over what to include and exclude. This year in particular. I mean the excessive detail, length and cruft included is maddening when it comes to some things and this year is no exception. Plus the use of poor and depreciated sources is frequently done. It’s a shit show to have such a section, no one is ever happy and it just cases edit conflicts. As such this article must not get to be derailed by one it must be eliminated or seriously considered as to what is a controversy and what is not and that is likely to be a tarpit on top of quicksand. ] (]) 05:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@] I do agree in that the controversies related to Israel in the contest this year should be condensed ASAP in the article, but mass removing them without prior discussion isn't a good move. @] has done most of the lifting, so it's a good starting point to discuss with. ] (]) 05:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I did condense the section but was reverted without reason by the user you mentioned. Additionally no one user is ‘a good stating point’ as that asserts they have some kind of ], which is a no-no, see also ]. As I have set out above the section has serious issues and if these can be overcome those I’ll be happy to pare it down but seriously the excessive detail; what was written on banners and graffitied that’s not needed, quote after quote after none of them are needed, the number of protests completely unnecessary. The section and all ‘controversies’ sections are a mess and this is no different. It has strayed in to commentary, bias, and news reporting of the actions of one set of individuals with little regard to encyclopaedic value and content. What the entrants did I can see a value to that, such as the statement and words or symbols removed or included in outfits. Otherwise it’s just being a news outlet and straying from the focus of the article. ] (]) 13:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I’m sorry but this section is the result of months of work of different editors. If I have expanded it significantly in these last few days, it’s because a lot of things are happening one after the other. You can’t Just come and make mass removals. I believe when dust has settled in the next days we will know how to deal more properly. Now, if you could tell me more in detail what sources you have an issue with, we can at least start from there. ~ ] (]) 07:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The amount of work and number of editors is completely irrelevant. That is an assertion of ], based on well hard work went in. Which is a major no-no of Misplaced Pages. Also ‘dust settling’ does not mean the issues raised to get a hand wave away. Serious issues such as ], ] and ]. Tabloid newspapers are an example source to avoid, the full list is in a table in the link provided. ] (]) 13:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Why have all the incidents of the Israeli delegation harassing other contestants been removed? This section paints Israel in a very positive light which is not reflective of the reality? ] (]) 23:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The section was pared-down and there is limited evidence of the harassment as claimed. ] (]) 03:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I want to thank {{user|A.D.Hope}} for cleaning up the section and making it compliant with the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages. It removes the tabloid reporting, overt detail, one-sidedness, and the in-depth platforming of one portion of events. ] (]) 18:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :“one sidedness” do you also accuse the page on the holocaust of being one sided and not presenting the nazi viewpoint fairly? ] (]) 07:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::False equivalence and completely inappropriate as a comment to make. Such a dreadful strawman. ] (]) 10:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It's very one sided now though? ] (]) 23:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Table accessibility == | |||
| I've just edited the 'Final' table to reduce the intensity of the red used to show the Netherlands' disqualification; the original colour had poor contrast with the blue links. I've also added a double dagger so that this information is not conveyed solely by colour. | |||
| However, I'm not as familiar with ] (specifically ]) as I'd like to be, so if anyone would like to double-check this then please do. ] (]) 11:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == "Israeli participation" subsection == | |||
| I'd appreciate it if another editor could double-check my edit to ]. I've attempted to condense it considerably, particularly as this is not the main article for the topic. As the topic is controversial it seems responsible to draw particular attention to the changes. ] (]) 15:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit Request == | |||
| {{Edit extended-protected|ans=y}} | |||
| <!--Don't remove anything above this line.--> | |||
| According to NOS, the Dutch national broadcaster,<ref>https://nos.nl/collectie/13971/liveblog/2520041-avrotros-joost-klein-was-boos-omdat-hij-gefilmd-werd-hij-raakte-cameravrouw-niet-aan</ref> which is a source in the article, the AVROTROS stement says Joost Klein didn't make a threatening gesture, but a threatening movement (NL: beweging --> EN: movement<ref>https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/dutch-english/beweging</ref>, while NL: gebaar --> EN: gesture<ref>https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/dutch-english/gebaar</ref>). I believe this should be changed. | |||
| ] (]) 16:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <!--Don't remove anything below this line--> | |||
| :'''Done'''. Happy to take your word for it on the translation, in conjunction with the sources. ] (]) 16:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I’m not at all that this claim is correct though. As a native dutch speaker I can confirm the litteral translations are correct. On does not make a movement at someone, one executes a movement (e.g. taking steps) towards someone. However in Dutch this strict difference does not exist. The words “beweging” and “gebaar” are used interchangeable in common parlance. Having read the entire statement, the context makes gesture the correct translation. ]]]1 19:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm very happy to defer to others on the translation. ] (]) 23:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Some recent updates. The EBU is disputing the AVROTROS/Klein’s version of the incident through their director-general ].<ref>https://m.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20240511_97631234</ref> It appears the Dutch broadcaster is trying to downplay the incident.]]]1 21:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{reftalk}} | |||
| == New article == | |||
| Would any editors support creating a new article titled "Controversies of the Eurovision Song Contest 2024", which would combine everything in the current #Incidents and controversies section, as well as a big chunk of the Israel in Eurovision 2024 article — ] ] 17:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I would '''support''' that.--] (]) 17:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I don’t think that’s warranted. I think this article deals with sufficiently already.]]]1 19:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Completely unnecessary | |||
| :there are already articles on each country. | |||
| :Another article is pointless duplication. ] (]) 23:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it's almost necessary - each annual event article contains very little specific information, most split out into country-by-year sub-articles. To comply with broadness and neutrality (i.e. giving ] for all aspects), there's no way the 'overview' article should then be so specific about controversies. It should have its own sub-article, too. ] (]) 23:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Nothing is necessary on Misplaced Pages. ]]]1 00:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Very true and such an article would just be duplicative and go into far too much detail on Israel which is the real reason why this is being proposed. | |||
| :::It must be remembered this is an encyclopaedia not a repository for all things on a news item where people are shouting loudly. ] (]) 02:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It seems implicitly clear that you oppose a very sensible split just because you don't want another article mentioning criticisms of Israel. I encourage you to see this request in the good faith way I believe it was intended, as a sensible procedural move to contain relevant information when it is too large for an overview article. ] (]) 10:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It seems you believe unequivocally for the split so lets leave it there. Phrasing like "a very sensible split just because..." is irrelevant and not of value to this discussion. Also your claims regarding Israel should be stuck as a personal attack as you are casting an aspersion based on something which your are conclusion jumping to. ] (]) 11:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I was replying to you, not making a point for discussion - the phrasing is of value in addressing your irrelevant objections. But let's leave it there if you're going to keep making up irrelevant reasons and pointing to whataboutisms to try and prevent ''a very sensible split'' because you ]. ] (]) 11:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::This is notice of disengagement with you as you are engaged in attacks and conclusion jumping and are not constructive in your comments. ] (]) 11:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Wait, so (below) I ask for you to explain your reasons and stop saying my comments have no value, and you think you're being constructive. Glad you'll leave me alone, though, after you just actively sought out one of my replies to somebody else to try and completely dismiss my arguments for no reason. ] (]) 11:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Strongly support''' This year is definitely the most controversial ever with loads of incidents, there's not much detail in the current main article (which should be mostly a TL;DR). ] (]) 00:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It hardl is. This just is ]. ]]]1 00:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Nope it is not, it just feels like it is because of recentism. It could easily be argued the UK act getting attacked on stage was more controversial or the allegations of a winner snorting drugs was more controversial. You could reach back into Cliff Richard losing for Britain in 1968 because of alleged Spanish vote buying or the year Celine Dione won for Switzerland by a single point. Throughout the years controversy reigns. ] (]) 02:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I couldn't disagree more. There has never been an artist being disqualified in the middle of the contest, or the potential of an unfolding lawsuit after the contest, and a narrow victory is hardly comparable to incidents which have police involvement. ] (]) 09:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Not sure about wether a specific article is necessary or not, but it definitely needs expansion. For example, there's no mention of Bambie Thug's complaint to the EBU regarding Kan's commentary about them. ] (]) 01:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I think the existing section covers the controversies enough. There is no need for a new article in my opinion. ] '''❯❯❯''' ] 04:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::We're still missing all the stuff regarding Bambie Thug, iolanda, Nemo, Olly Alexander, Slimane, 5 minuust & Puuluup, Tali, and many reports of the Israeli delegation's actions - and probably more I can't think of off the top of my head — ] ] 07:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is why I support a separate article. Going into detail about the experiences of every artist would take a long time but would still be important and would be better in it's own article ] (]) 09:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Right now? Probably not needed (though the existing section should definitely mention more of the behind the scenes stuff around Bambie and KAN). But definitely should be kept in mind for the future, some of these controversies are likely to continue well past the contest. ] (]) 14:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Strongly support''' | |||
| :A lot has been going on, and Eurovision 2024 shouldn't become bloated or unnavigatable. ] (]) 18:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' as this should not be its own article. It needs to stay as a section of the current one to keep all of the contest history together. ] (]) 19:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think this should be slipt, keep it all together to let people know of what happened to this contest specifically. ] (]) 20:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I would support it, as it would keep the main article navigable and allow the full details of the controversies be found in one place, not buried and summarised in the main article. ] (]) 21:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''', as this is common for international competitions--i.e. ] in Paris, ] in Qatar, etc. The controversies section often covers unrelated but important content that is better suited for its own section, as this is a song contest, while the controversies section includes (for example) content about the ]. ] (]) 20:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}All of that best goes on the individual articles of the acts, no need to duplicate. | |||
| :Then why not just put all of it at the artist's/country's articles? Answer: because it's also relevant to the running of the competition. But given the extreme length of this overall article, and the lack of detail about any other topic, it is not appropriate to go into any level of depth for the relevant controversies. If there was only one or two, as in many previous years, that would be more appropriate, but not when it's multiple incidents and getting longer than the hosting section. The information is good to keep but should be split, on procedural grounds, and any !vote about not liking multiple articles is completely irrelevant. ] (]) 10:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The above is an excuse to create duplication and that goes against Misplaced Pages. there are always controversies at every year and simply going well now is absurd. Keep to the country articles and the main article. no more articles are needed as that is just a waste of Misplaced Pages space and duplication. "given the extreme length of this overall article, and the lack of detail about any other topic" This is covered by Misplaced Pages policies to stop excessive detail, focus on recentism, news reporting and treating Misplaced Pages as a repository for everything. ] (]) 11:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you can't distinguish between an explanation of good reasons to split, and {{tq|excuses to create duplication}} – or, more likely, refuse to acknowledge the difference when you just don't want the split – then you have no place commenting. Just explain your reasons if you have them and stop ] the integrity/value of mine. ] (]) 11:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please tone down and abandon the conclusion jumping and aspersions. ] (]) 11:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sorry, you stalk my comments, try and write my views off completely, and you don't think you're the one who needs to tone it down. I thought we talked about this. ] (]) 11:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - A separate article is unnecessary. The mere length of an article cannot be enough reason to split it up. Question is whether the topic itself deserves a standalone article and I don't think so in this case. If your goal is to shorten the article, I strongly suggest removing the OGAE voting paragraph, since that has nothing to do with the official event and gives a level of importance to the OGAE that they don't have. OGAE voting over the years is a prime example of a topic that would warrant a separate article. ] (]) 15:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{tq|The mere length of an article cannot be enough reason to split it up.}} – No? ] And, ], is a major concern at this article. The two-sentence OGAE paragraph would barely make a dent. | |||
| *:For what it's worth, I personally think that, in terms of length, there are many other things that need splitting or condensing. I'm writing a separate proposal below. My personal concerns with the length of this controversies section (as mentioned above) is that it's too long ] the lengths of sections of other things that are more important. | |||
| *:As for topic - a really good thing to bring up by the way - there's a reason that when long articles get split up, the controversies and issues and concerns kind of sections are among the first to go: tangential to the main event, but relevant in how it was received, detail is good but not priority. ] (]) 15:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Per ] however, the current length of the article (64 kB prose size or 4716 words readable prose) does not justify a split based on length alone. As for ], given there are several individual paragraphs, the subject of the large majority of these has been covered in great detail within media, leads me to believe that the weight attributed to the section is justified given the number of events which have taken place in the lead up to this year's contest. I would however potentially merge some of these into the respective country in contest by year articles, or into other sections, given that there is a lot of overlap in terms of the root cause for some of these. ] (]) 20:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - Agree with ]s reply to Hhl95 above - the article is way too long however the controversy section isn't the issue and in fact when I preview-removed that whole section it barely did anything in terms of length, the broadcast table and Participating countries table are excessively long and probably should be condensed or split, Right solution just the wrong section listed. –]<sup>]</sup> 15:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Is there a way to make those tables collapsible so they take up less space? The information in those tables (while long) pertains more to the contest as a whole than the controversy section. ] (]) 17:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Several of those tables can just be removed or shortened. I did some suggestions further down the talk page, where there is another section about the length of the article. ] (]) 08:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Per PicturePerfect666 and Davey2010. IMHO, the controversies are already well presented in the existing section. ] (]) 16:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - the section is missing a lot of events, but expanding it might take up too much of the focus ] (]) 16:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - there's a lot in that section, and I could see the use of splitting it off into a new page. ] (]) 17:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Why though there are already 37 sub pages we don’t need a 38th. ] (]) 17:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - This seems sensible to me. These things are more loosely related to the contest than most of the other segments, and splitting it to another article would be logical. ] (]) 18:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' By and large, these controversies can be covered in detail on the individual ' in the Eurovision Song Contest 2024', with only a summary on this page. ] (]) 18:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Strong oppose''' I am sure the proposal is made with good intentions but fear it would only whitewash the main article by removing the controversies to an article few are likely to visit now that the event is over. ] (]) 19:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I disagree, and think this is why the controversies of the contest should also be its own article. Each article should cover its own controversies in a quick summary, but we need more space to cover the controversies in much broader detail. It is unlikely that this will be the last we hear about this year's incidents, and we need more space to update it as it all unfolds. ] (]) 09:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' There were numerous minor incidents and major ones this year, and the controversy section will likely soon take up half the article if not acted upon. This will place undue emphasis on negativities. Criticism and incidents at a contest relate directly to that contest and should be covered somewhere relevant and be consistent. A dedicated article makes perfect sense! ] (]) 20:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:The issue is Misplaced Pages is not for every little thing considered ‘a controversy’ ] (]) 20:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::The controversies are hardly "little things". Your attempts at refuting every single argument here that supports a new article are weak. <span style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #999999">]<sup>]</sup></span> 11:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::The arguments in support are even weaker… ]]]1 11:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::It’s true what is said though about recentism, cruft, bias, NPOV, and balance in these sections. There are already 37 sub articles and a 38th is just a recentism fork because of loudness regarding current events. Give this a fortnight and all the noise will have gone and this year will be no different to other years. Something always happens at Eurovision. This year it was anti-Israel, previously it was the uk getting attacked on stage, previously it was Russia being excluded, previously it was the inclusion of Bosnia on 1992. All as controversial as the the recent events fresh in people’s minds. ] (]) 13:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:This an unfounded ] statement. The controversies section actually only takes up a relatively small part of the article. If anything the coverage should be '''reduced''' rather than increased by giving it a separate article. ]]]1 11:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::For main body content, ignoring titles, tables, images and infoboxes, the word count current stands at around 4700, but the controversy section is around 900, which is 19% of the article. This is pretty large and has grown since my original voicing of support. Reduction of content would be unencyclopædic and frankly a whitewash. ] (]) 20:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Strongly support:''' I absolutely think that there is very little coverage of the controversies of the Eurovision Song Contest, and there has never been an artist getting disqualified in the middle of the contest before, so this is without question the most controversial edition ever. It is vital to cover the controversies of the contest given how much they reflect and even shape the geopolitics of the countries involved, so I think ] should also be its own article. ] (]) 09:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:There already is ]. ]]]1 11:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::That is "political controversies", not every controversy is political — ] ] 11:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Strong Support''' per Kingsif and Kapitan110295. <span style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #999999">]<sup>]</sup></span> 11:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Strong oppose''' While 2024 has certainly been on the more extreme scale when it comes to controversial editions, I do think creating this article would fall within the ] bracket. I believe that continuing to host relevant controversies on this article is the better call, keeping it in summary where necessary while delving into further information on already existing sub-articles, such as the country in contest by year articles. ] (]) 20:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Move "political controversies" to just "controversies" === | |||
| An alternative solution would be moving the ] to ] and then expanding it — ] ] 11:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a can of worms proposal and would be so large potentially, that it would be unmanageable. The reason political controversies are separate is because of the apolitical nature of the contest. ] (]) 13:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would tend to agree, I think keeping the subject of this article to just those controversies where politics played a part, and in particular providing context for longer-term controversies, is more relevant and more useful to the reader. There would be several "controversies" in part editions which I believe would fall under ], so keeping a focus here on political trends and addressing individual controversies which occured in a specific year on those individual articles is a much more useful way of approaching the situation. ] (]) 20:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|ImStevan}} Why are you directing discussion for this on this talk page and not on the respective article's talk page? ] (]) 20:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The discussions are linked in my opinion — ] ] 20:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' as creating numerous "controversy" pages for Eurovision could lead to a controversy of its own. ] (]) 00:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Full spokespersons list and order released == | |||
| Eurofestival News released the full list of spokespersons (https://www.eurofestivalnews.com/2024/05/11/spokeperson-eurovision-2024-italia-26-mele-rinuncia/) - with Kaarija in there still, despite his later withdrawal ] (]) 18:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ABBA Voyage == | |||
| The article says that the Malmö performance of "Waterloo" was {{tq|preceded by a pre-recorded segment in which the song's original performers, ABBA, discussed their Eurovision experience on the occasion of its 50th anniversary}} – I don't think this is strictly true. It appears that the show went live(?) to the ] arena in London – it certainly at least showed a crowd in the London arena – and the "ABBAtars" talking about "Waterloo" as part of that show. ] (]) 23:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :You are correct. It clearly were cgi versions of the ABBA members.]]]1 00:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Image representing the host city == | |||
| ] | |||
| I wanted to add an image representing the host city, but I cannot add it since I do not have an account and that seems mandatory for this article. | |||
| So I leave the image here if someone else wants to add it. | |||
| ] (]) 23:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It's a lovely idea, but I don't really see this as something the article needs. I think the image of the host venue is enough. ] '''❯❯❯''' ] 04:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Extended-protected edit request on 12 May 2024 == | |||
| We now have a reliable source with details on what happened with Joost Klein and the reporter: ] (]) 23:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually that is the AVROTROS account of the events. They are not neutral. The EBU has already disputed this account.]]]1 00:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Extended-protected edit request on 12 May 2024 (Split results) == | |||
| I made an overview of the split televoting-jury results: ] (]) 23:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Detailed results are missing == | |||
| 12 points list is missing.<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :They can be found here: | |||
| :https://eurovisionworld.com/eurovision/2024 | |||
| :Someone with edit privileges should update the page. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :for the first semi-final as well as the Latvian 12 points in the semi-final. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::The Latvian semi-final 12 points are still missing! ] (]) 07:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Nemo's final performance. == | |||
| The starting position of Nemo in the grand final should be written in bold. ] (]) 06:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, got the winner's encore performance video up on YouTube? Just in case to include that on ]. ] (]) 07:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Delay in publishing the Portuguese performance on YouTube == | |||
| The video was only posted after the votes closed, which generated controversy. | |||
| Fonte: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZn4-H6JvKU&ab_channel=EurovisionSongContest | |||
| https://www.escportugal.pt/2024/05/esc2024-atuacao-de-portugal-na-final.html | |||
| https://www.rtp.pt/noticias/cultura/eurovisao-ebu-protelou-publicacao-de-video-de-iolanda-com-simbolos-da-palestina_v1570890 ] (]) 09:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Bold country names in results tables. == | |||
| I feel like there needs to be an explanation as to why Israel, Ukraine, Armenia, Serbia, Moldova and the Czech Republic have their names in bold in the tables detailing which countries have given their 12 points to which other countries. Could somebody please put in a brief explanation or alternatively remove the bolding? ] (]) 10:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It's countries that awarded both 12 points from the jury and televoting to the same country; not sure why that's not noted — ] ] 11:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Removal of scare quotes around "genocide" == | |||
| {{Edit extended-protected|answered=yes}} | |||
| <!--Don't remove anything above this line.--> | |||
| * '''What I think should be changed: | |||
| Remove quotes around "genocide": | |||
| {{TextDiff|Fred Leone, the didgeridoo player for Australia's performance, had a stylised watermelon painted on his chest in condemnation of the Gaza "genocide".|Fred Leone, the didgeridoo player for Australia's performance, had a stylised watermelon painted on his chest in condemnation of the Gaza genocide.}} | |||
| * '''Why it should be changed''': | |||
| Having quotes around "genocide" can be seen as implicitly disagreeing with the classification of the situation in Gaza as a genocide (see ]). I believe this is not Misplaced Pages's call to make, and removing the quotes is faithful to how both the and sources phrased it. The current phrasing was introduced in revision {{oldid2|1222874763}}. | |||
| I do not know if this change might be too controversial for an edit request, but I am open to discussion. | |||
| ] (]) 10:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <!--Don't remove anything below this line--> | |||
| :If the content is (as I believe it clearly should be) moved to a sub-article on controversies, I believe that article title in itself is enough demarcation that the content is sensitive, and so scare quotes wouldn't be needed. Thanks for bringing it up. ] (]) 10:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - Removing the "" around the term takes a side and wades in, neck-deep into a contentious claim and a claim without definition. Genocide has many definitions and there are cultural, societal, legal, etc. Which do you pick and why? Wikivoice cannot make such a claim. Claims of "genocide" are highly POV and disputed. Also these are not 'scare quotes' it shows that the term is used by some as a descriptor but it is not necessarily accurate. ] (]) 10:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I am aware that these are probably not intended to be scare quotes, but that is how I originally read it, and I reckon that others might read it like that too. That is why I think the current article might risk POV, but I now realise that simply removing the quotes would just flip the POV in the other direction. | |||
| *:As an alternative, what if it said "had a stylised watermelon painted on his chest to call against genocide in Gaza"? This is almost the exact phrasing used by the secondary source, and in my eyes does not seem to imply that Misplaced Pages recognises or disputes the Gaza situation as a genocide. | |||
| *:As another alternative, we could expand the quotation so that it is not just that single word. I cannot find a suitable small but descriptive quote to use, and quoting a large section of the Instagram post feels like undue focus. Plus, it's not written in very encyclopaedic language (if that's a relevant concern, which I'm not sure it is). ] (]) 11:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Alternative''' - Just refrain from using the word 'genocide' in this context. There is no concensus about whether the situation in Gaza qualifies as genocide and it is not up to Misplaced Pages to decide on this. There are plenty of other words you can use, such as the more neutral word 'conflict'. ] (]) 15:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Leone was protesting what he considers genocide, and if Misplaced Pages is covering it at all, WP then has the duty to accurately explain what the issue/controversy was. It would not be neutral to use a generic term that does not reflect what Leone's protest was. Misplaced Pages is not deciding anything - the purpose of the quotation marks. | |||
| *:I think the suggestion of expanding what is quoted is the best solution. As quoting one word can appear sarcastic and like Misplaced Pages is deriding Leone's view, while not using quotation marks is inappropriate use of wikivoice, using a longer quote would prevent either from being a concern. Using sourced wording also prevents misinterpretation from Misplaced Pages restatement. ] (]) 15:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::What individual acts consider genocide does not mean Misplaced Pages goes that is genocide. Additionally Misplaced Pages is not here ‘to cover everything’ that is for news companies and not an encyclopaedia. ] (]) 16:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::No, and that's why there's quotation marks. Misplaced Pages accurately explaining what Leone's action was for, is not agreeing with him, and I never suggested that, so I don't know what your reply is for - unless that wasn't understood. | |||
| *:::Though I don't know how I can explain it better: Leone's act was to protest genocide, as he sees it. It was ''not'' to protest conflict. Misplaced Pages would be introducing inaccuracy (at least) - for no other reason than avoiding a word we could just attribute - if we followed the suggestion to say conflict. {{small|(The 'at least' is referring to the fact that readers who go to the source would see that Leone wasn't protesting conflict, but what he sees as genocide, and could interpret WP avoiding the word as WP taking a side.)}} | |||
| *:::So, best to use an extended quote. ] (]) 16:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::It’s promoting their opinion above others which is undue weight and undue bias. ] (]) 17:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::If it was the only thing being written about, I would agree, but saying (effectively) "one of the protest actions was this guy painting his chest which he did so because he thinks X", in the middle of a list of four things, is not undue weight or undue bias. I, genuinely, encourage you to look at it in the context it's in. Misplaced Pages is not presenting his view either as correct or more important than others. Saying that a guy did X because he believes Y is not, in this instance, giving undue weight to what he believes. | |||
| *:::::The text has now been edited to {{tq|in condemnation of the perceived genocide}}, anyway. But... | |||
| *:::::I've just edited the section to try and make it more readable and NPOV. I debated removing this part entirely, not for any NPOV concerns, but simply because I can only see the one source for it (and it's Eurovoix, which almost indiscriminately covers everything at Eurovision), so whether it's important enough for inclusion is a question. This also comes as I am thinking of rewriting a more generic (shorter) "There were numerous actions by other participating acts in protest", because I was going to move out the Belgian union and the opening act stuff, and Bambie Thug has other involvements. Which would only leave Leone, and again, on its own it would be inappropriate. | |||
| *:::::I also think the section warrants a mention of the overwhelming public vote for Israel, but we're on clean-up at the moment. ] (]) 17:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::I think that's a slippery road to go on. It is not up to us to interpret the televote score and to phrase it as support for Israel outside Eurovision. Every year there is plenty to say and interpret about the voting and I think we should just refrain from that, unless there are explicit and sourced voting declarations. ] (]) 02:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::For the record: the word 'conflict' was not a suggestion, it was an example. It was not intended to make this a choice between 'genocide' or 'conflict'. Like I wrote, there are plenty of words you could use, or it could be phrased differently, for example by referring to the victims. My proposal is just to remove the word 'genocide' and to use your imagination for a less contested way to phrase it. There's no need to use the literal words that Leone used. ] (]) 02:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I agree just don’t include the word or section at all. The word is far too loaded, and POV. Best just don’t use it. ] (]) 17:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Didn't see this - given my (above mentioned) apprehensions about including it on relevance, I will take this as small consensus to remove that example. ] (]) 17:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{reftalk}} | |||
| == Additional incidents related to the final == | |||
| * "At Saturday night’s final, Portuguese entrant iolanda appeared onstage with nails painted with the pattern of a kaffiyeh during her performance of “Grito.”" | |||
| * "Loreen will not hand over the trophy to Eden Golan in case of Israel’s victory on Eurovision 2024" | |||
| * "dropped the microphone-shaped glass trophy, injuring their thumb in the process." | |||
| ] (]) 12:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Regarding the first bullet: "The EBU has not uploaded Portugal’s performance to the official YouTube channel." ] (]) 12:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Detailed voting results tables == | |||
| Previous Eurovision Contest pages have detailed voting results tables. Will this years article have them too, or isn't the information available? ] (]) 13:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :the detailed results tables for semi-final 2 and the final are available. you can go see them at eurovisionworld.com and eurovision.tv | |||
| :semi-final 1's results are unavailable at the moment, due to a glitch at the detailed results of the semi-final 1 website ] (]) 15:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The links are and . If anyone's willing to tussle with the table formatting for it (as seen ]), put the table here and I can put it into the article. ] (]) 16:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Article problems identified at ITN == | |||
| Usually, Eurovision is featured on the ] in the ITN box. The nomination has identified some issues that are preventing this article this year from being posted. I know lots of users want to add content, but it's probably best that the problems are addressed first. | |||
| ITN comments have so far noted: | |||
| #Some parts lacking sources | |||
| ##Detailed results mentioned explicitly | |||
| #Article is too long to navigate easily | |||
| ##Some sections should be forked off | |||
| ##Postcards table, voting list, spokespersons could be excessive trivia | |||
| #Concerns with the controversies section | |||
| If sources can be added, that would be helpful. | |||
| I think most forks (i.e. splits) should be discussed, which could take some time - while I, and I'm sure many other users, am experienced in splitting content and BOLD guidelines, the main sections that are candidates for being split off seem to be Broadcasters and Controversies. There's already a discussion above (]) about splitting off the latter, so that should be resolved some way or another (even a no consensus, do whatever) before content is moved. And in terms of broadcasters, since that's such an integral part of the competition, it would seem counterintuitive to not have some kind of list at the main article. (Similar with votes). | |||
| However, I think it is an easy solution to move the postcards information to the various country sub-articles. ] (]) 15:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Split proposal: Grand Final content == | |||
| I don't think this has ever been done before, but in terms of navigating the article, which is very long, it seems clear it would be beneficial to split it. The first split I think should be made - that which I think would be best overall - is to create an article on the grand final itself as an event, and of course then to split out the content that pertains only to the grand final. ] (]) 16:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion=== | |||
| People are suggesting that we remove information instead of simply splitting the article. That makes no sense.--] (]) 13:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: Now that the article appears on ITN I guess we could close that part of the discussion. Still a split would be suitable. --] (]) 00:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Survey=== | |||
| *'''Support''' as nom. ] (]) 16:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - would rather support a controversies article ] (]) 16:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:You can support both. ] (]) 16:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I don't think the final needs a separate article at all ] (]) 16:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - As noted above (and as can be seen ) the controversy section isn't the problem and removing it doesn't do much in terms of article length, Support - can always be reworked if it doesn't work. –]<sup>]</sup> 16:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - the grand final section is about as long as any other year's, so I don't see a point in making a new page for it ] (]) 17:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - I think the details about the final are the most crucial part about these articles, and if things end up too long then it would be better to move other less relevant parts to separate articles. ] (]) 17:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:That's an interesting topical point: if the final (rather than the whole contest) is 'crucial', then I see it as a question of whether the overview article should be tailored to cover the final and let the hosting, broadcasting, semi-finals, songs, etc. be split out as subsidiary - or if an article on the final should be considered the crucial article for people who want to read about it. ] (]) 18:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - As per reasons already stated above. There's not enough to warrant a separate article, and it would add unnecessary confusion. ] (]) 18:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Not really any need, not longer than for previous years. ] (]) 19:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' It's about the same length as all other recent years, no need for it ] (]) 19:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strongly Oppose''' Just because the article is long doesn't mean it needs to be split up. ] (]) 19:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strongly Oppose''' I think that would create just an absolute mess for other articles. I don't think it needs to be split up ] (]) 21:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strongly Oppose''' I don't see a benefit in doing this. Long articles are fine, and doing this would make reading about ESC2024 much harder. ] (]) 23:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strongly Support''' - This has been brought up over at ITN as well. The article is way too long and difficult to navigate.] (]) 00:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - I think there are plenty of ways to shorten the article. And I have not always followed it closely, but I noticed that the format has changed, which effectively increased the length of the article. Here are some suggestions to shorten the article: | |||
| :* Remove the 'Notes' column in the Bidding phase table. Use the Notes section further down the article if explanations are needed. | |||
| :* Remove the list of participants table. They are already integrated in the result tables. All those extra details such as the broadcasters and songwriters can be covered in the country article or song article and don't need to be covered in the general event article. The broadcasters are already covered in the Broadcasts section anyways. So the list of participants table basically only exists to feature the songwriters and is therefore redundant. If we really want to feature the songwriters on this page, I suggest using the format of the German event article. | |||
| :* Remove the postcards table. I think we could do with a short explanation of the concept of this year's postcards. Perhaps alternatively, every country page could feature a more detailed section about that country's postcard. | |||
| :* Remove the OGAE voting section. This is irrelevant to the official Contest and it gives the OGAE voting an importance that it does not have. The Contest already comprises a much larger public vote itself, so the OGAE voting really doesn't represent anything. ] (]) 02:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] You may go to WikiProject Eurovision if you want to initiate discussions on the wider formatting of the contest year pages - more experienced editors with expertise on the contest will be willing to discuss further ] (]) 07:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I did realise that I probably suggested things that have been deliberated before. But we are discussing the length of the article here as a problem, so these are suggestions to shorten the article(s). Perhaps concensus can be reached here already. ] (]) 08:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Absolutely not. We need the participants tables — ] ] 09:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::What is the added value of the participants table if the participants are already covered in the results table? ] (]) 10:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I don't feel it is necessary to make a separate page for the finals. ] (]) 06:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' instead of ] out the final article, maybe remove the ] like the "postcard" table, complete voting list, and lists of spokespersons, so that the article isn't so long. ]] (]) 10:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' no necessary to do this. ] <small>(]-])</small> 12:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' Completely unnecessary to split, and in fact I believe this would be damaging to the article(s); the contest is a single event with three shows, so it is much rather represented as a unified article for all three shows. One large article, even if a bit unwieldy at times, that covers all the facets of the contest (either in summary or in full) is a much better solution in my opinion than trying to funnel information into multiple smaller articles that would lead to a loss of context. ] (]) 14:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2024 == | |||
| {{edit extended-protected|Eurovision Song Contest 2024|answered=yes}} | |||
| In "Incidents and controversies" / "Spokesperson changes", change "were announced by Österdahl" to "were announced by Österdahl, who was heavily booed". | |||
| In the "Participating countries" chart, change the Netherlands' language cell from "Dutch" to "Dutch, German (two verses), Italian (two verses), English (two verses and some words), French, Spanish (some words)" ] (]) 17:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{not done}} I've added a bit more to the spokesperson section, but we need a ] for Österdahl being booed. As for the song languages, I recall that there is some WP standard for what language is listed (perhaps a certain %age of the song sung in it) - but again, it would need a source. The current source, of course showing various lines in other languages, is the Eurovision website. So you might be better raising the question at the ], on when non-main languages are to be included and what sourcing would be required. ] (]) 17:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Israel controversies == | |||
| The section can be reduced to a single paragraph, . This article isn't the main article for the controversies involving Israel, so ] can be applied and most of the content transferred to ]. ] (]) 19:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I've added links to what is already at the Israel article in the paragraph that's already there. Sure. Why not. If it keeps the topic together and makes the main article more manageable, people will still try to add things but signposting should help. ] (]) 19:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Yes, I can see that and it's an improvement. My point is that the three subsections beneath the opening paragraph can be removed, as that detailed information should be in the 'Israel in Eurovision 2024' article. ] (]) 08:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Lead second para first sentence == | |||
| I propose changing the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead from: | |||
| :''Thirty-seven countries participated in the contest, with Luxembourg competing for the first time since 1993, while Romania opted not to participate after doing so the previous year.'' | |||
| to | |||
| :''Thirty-seven countries participated in the contest, the same number as in 2023. Romania did not return, however, Luxembourg competed for the first time since 1993.'' | |||
| The second version flows better, and also includes the fact that the number of competing countries has remained stable from 2023. @] has reverted the change when I've tried to insert it into the article, hence opening a discussion to discuss what their objection might be. ] (]) 19:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@] That is because "the same number as " hasn't really been included as a line for previous years' articles. Returning countries are also often mentioned first before non-returns/withdrawals ] (]) 23:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It doesn't matter that the line hasn't been included in previous articles, really. It wouldn't be for many, because the number of participating countries fluctuates. | |||
| ::The order of Luxembourg and Romania doesn't much matter, but 'while Romania' reads somewhat awkwardly. ] (]) 08:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] The aim (at least in my view, although there are other editors who may or may not agree) is to achieve consistency between contest year pages, in particular the recent years, and deviating too much from the established lead wording would fail to do so. ] (]) 09:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's desirable to have consistency in terms of sections and general order, but the exact words don't need to be the same from one year's article to the next. It's ultimately more important to present the information in a natural, fluent way. ] (]) 11:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Here's my suggestion according to your edit: | |||
| :::::''Thirty-seven countries participated in the contest, the same number as in 2023. Romania opted not to participate, while Luxembourg competed for the first time since 1993.'' | |||
| :::::The reason why I described Romania as "chose not to participate" is due to that it's the norm for previous years where a country choose to not participate after doing so the previous year. Wording such as "withdraw" only applies when a country changes its participation plans at a late stage, i.e. after the EBU announces the list of participants. ] (]) 13:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Censorship of Portuguese acting == | |||
| Controversies of the 2024 Eurovision Song Contest insert Censorship of Portuguese performance on social networks due to Palestinian symbols on nails. "RTP’s President, Nicolau Santos said today that the broadcaster awaits "thorough" answers about the delay in posting Iolanda's performance during the #Eurovision final." | |||
| Broadcaster RTP will present a formal protest to the EBU in case foul play is detected by the delayed upload of iolanda’s performance ] (]) 19:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2024 (2) == | |||
| {{edit extended-protected|Eurovision Song Contest 2024|answered=yes}} | |||
| Requesting pronoun for Nemo be corrected in section ''Non-binary pride flag ban'', from: | |||
| {{tqbm|text=The singer, who identifies as non-binary, admitted to breaking the rules by smuggling one in in protest, which '''he''' displayed in the Green Room.}} | |||
| To: | |||
| {{tqbm|text=The singer, who identifies as non-binary, admitted to breaking the rules by smuggling one in in protest, which '''they''' displayed in the Green Room.}} ] (]) 20:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 20:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Addition of countries that called for Gaza ceasefire == | |||
| {{edit extended-protected|Eurovision Song Contest 2024|answered=yes}} | |||
| Addition of Switzerland among countries that called for ceasefire in Gaza as is listed among the nations that have done so in source 359 used in the paragraph.<ref>, additional text.</ref> | |||
| :Ahead of the contest, in March 2024, an open letter was released by various participants. While not mentioning Israel's participation in the contest, the entrants for Ireland, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, | |||
| <=== | |||
| :Belgium, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Lithuania, and Finland called for "an immediate and lasting ceasefire" in Gaza, as well as the return of war hostages. ] (]) 01:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> <span style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #999999">]<sup>]</sup></span> 10:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| == Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2024 == | |||
| {{edit extended-protected|Eurovision Song Contest 2024|answered=no}} | |||
| The section regarding allegations of harassment by the Israeli delegation towards the Irish, Portuguese, Greek, Dutch, Spanish and Swiss delegations and journalists is missing large swaths of necessary information, especially surrounding the removal of a stylist working with the Israeli delegation and the complaints sent by the Spanish journalists working there. | |||
| Additionally, there is no information regarding the controversy regarding the EBU's decision to not use footage from the final performance of Portugal's song in official materials and during portions of the broadcast, and the Portuguese artist's nails, which were decorated with pro-Palestinian imagery. | |||
| <ref>https://twitter.com/juanmafdez/status/1788972031310008504?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1788972031310008504%7Ctwgr%5E395d5765f1bda9182e2bb7f94004bfa4725dc1bd%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newarab.com%2Fnews%2Fwas-dutch-eurovision-contestant-dropped-over-israel-tension</ref> | |||
| <ref>https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/spain-speaks-out-eurovision-shambles-32783717</ref> | |||
| <ref>https://www.ynetnews.com/culture/article/sjqdf11pga</ref> | |||
| <ref>https://eurovisionfun.com/en/2024/05/israel-stylist-kicked-out-of-eurovision-venue-for-filming-contestant/</ref> ] (]) 02:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :In interview | |||
| :"The president of the Board of Directors of RTP specified that the Portuguese delegation “reacted immediately when they saw that the video had not entered as the others were entering, immediately after the end of the performance, and the indication that was given through a exchanging emails is that there was a technical problem" | |||
| :"It was during this exchange of emails that the person responding to our delegation said 'but your competitor has pro-Palestinian motives painted on her nails'. On our part we asked the question 'what does that have to do with this? ' (…) and what happened is that immediately afterwards the video came in", he explained, noting that the delegation continues to be in contact with the organizer and is "waiting to know the most complete explanations". | |||
| :When asked about whether he was considering filing a formal protest, the person in charge stressed that it is necessary to have consolidated "the indications of what happened and whether there was actually a technical problem or whether it was someone in the 'regie' who purposely delayed the entry of the video up in the air". ] (]) 13:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is more than evident that there was censorship on the part of the EBU, due to Symbols of Palestine, so much so that they only aired it after the end of the votes. It's strange that they allege technical problems in this performance. ] (]) 13:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| == Detailed results == | |||
| The detailed results of the final can be copied from my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Alex1/sandbox ] (]) 11:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you so much! — ] ] 19:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == "Abuse directed at Israel" section == | |||
| The term "abuse" is a little bit extreme, don't you think? It is not much of an "abuse" but rather a negative response to the Israeli participation to the contest. ] (]) 11:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2024 (2) == | |||
| {{edit extended-protected|Eurovision Song Contest 2024|answered=yes}} | |||
| Hello, | |||
| There is some misinformation in the jury changes section in the Eurovision 2024 article. Kaarija did indeed provide an reason and he wrote "I have decided not to participate as the spokesperson for the Finnish Jury in tonight's Eurovision finale. Giving out the points tonight does not feel right." in both finnish and english in his social media instagram story. ] (]) 12:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :"Does not feel right" feels too vague to qualify as a reason, Alessandra and Nikkie provided more concrete reasons for their withdrawal. ] (]) 13:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@]: Could you provide a link to this social media post so it can be verified? <span class="nowrap">—]</span> (]) 16:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Already sourced it — ] ] 17:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks, closing this request as {{Already done}}. <span class="nowrap">—]</span> (]) 17:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Gilmore Girls DVD == | |||
| It has been confirmed from one of the writers of ESC that the Season 3 DVD of Gilmore Girls has been posted to the Swiss delegation after winning https://twitter.com/EdwardafSillen/status/1790047773519208773 ] (]) 19:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Given that Edward af Sillen is a comedy writer, and the DVD "prize" was a joke, I would take that tweet with a pinch of salt. ] (]) 20:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Traumatic experiences == | |||
| I Think we should add a part of multiple artist coming out and saying the entire experience. For example Ireland about the backstage mood and abuse from both israeli media and the EBU. Also latvian singer said in a tweet: "Going after that country, with the crowd being so intense, was one of the worst things I had to go through, I really did the best that I could in this situation...traumatic experience, wish it all ended after the first semi" ] (]) 20:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:EEp --> | |||
| :Also Ukrainian artist in an interview about the backstage: | |||
| :https://x.com/ESCdiscord/status/1790086938621341977 | |||
| :Norway too: | |||
| :https://x.com/euroviNOR/status/1790052515880317430 | |||
| :link to Latvian singers tweet: | |||
| :https://x.com/SilvestrasBelte/status/1789453808239530370 ] (]) 21:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This is not a place to do a laundry list of people personal feelings and opinions. The Irish complaints about conduct are included. The ‘mood’ and ‘intensity’ is just speculation and not encyclopaedic. | |||
| :additionally tweets are very bad sources and should be avoided. ] (]) 23:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Obsolete source, verifiability violation == | |||
| == reactions during israel interview == | |||
| The claim {{Blockquote|text=Through social media content, Israeli broadcaster Kan also expressed concerns over alleged antisemitism in Malmö, attributing this to the "Islamisation of Europe".}} cites a source that itself only cites a now-deleted Twitter/X account. ] says such posts may only be used as sources if they don't involve third parties, which this does. If this claim can't be substantiated with reliable sources, it should be deleted. ] (]) 08:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Maybe add a section during israel's interview after semi final 2 i believe. the Greek singer pretented to fall asleep and the Dutch singer with the flag over their head ] (]) 21:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I am not following here. The website ESCplus is used as the source as you mentioned. Thus, TWITTER does not apply here. Additionally, both the and the have been archived. --] (]) 10:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :No need to add this cruft and minutiae. Misplaced Pages is not a repository for every action by every person. ] (]) 23:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :] made ]. To be on the safe side, do you know of a different source IvanScrooge98? --] (]) 10:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I tried to make a quick search and the only other source I found was also directly citing the tweet, though I remember watching the original KAN video making this statement so I’ll see if I can dig it up – unfortunately, many Eurovision websites decided to limit their coverage on Israel in light of the current events so I think it’s going to be hard. In any case I’m also not convinced WP:TWITTER applies when the tweet is included within a larger article from a third-party source. <s>Thanks for linking to</s> As for the archive, at least for the moment that may suffice to substantiate the article content. ~ ] (]) 11:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::That lines up with my searches sadly. No problem regarding the links, I think. (Can I ask why that is scratched out?) --] (]) 11:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oh, I simply had not noticed the archive link was already included in the page and I was thanking you for providing it :) So I reworded my comment. Btw, if I find anything I’ll update you. Thanks! ~ ] (]) 11:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Oh, so it is... That would have saved me some time. (Off topic, but I just ran the website through the Wayback Machine, which was helpful as that was how I found your edit on March 24th thanks to the auto archiving project archiving on that day. I had tried ]) In any case, thank you as well and best of luck in your search. --] (]) 11:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::A claim of that nature requires much more evidence than one reference; why aren't we seeing more articles on it of it was so impactful? It feels more like a click-bait/reactionary article rather than a news report. Also, ESC Plus is listed as a source ]; it's has not gained its full credit as a ]. The 'investigation' of alternatives really was just an editor's verification of the subject matter when what we actually need is additional reputable sources also reporting on it. ] (]) 15:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Found this related article by Kan from a few days later: https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan-news/local/730236/. It doesn’t refer to antisemitism when discussing Malmö nor to alleged “Islamization of Europe”, but it cites official travel warnings by the ]. Unfortunately I couldn’t find the original social media video the tweet was reporting. In any case you’re right to say we shouldn’t mention it if it can’t back it up. ~ ] (]) 16:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::My understanding was that it was a program that aired on KAN, but regardless it does seem better to remove given the struggle to verify it. --] (]) 11:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Ah. Looks like it was already taken care of. Thank you for looking into this. --] (]) 11:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Ah, didn't know that ] existed. Thank you for the heads up. --] (]) 11:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Revert possible vandalism == | |||
| == Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2024 == | |||
| I have reverted two edits made by IP address ] that were both disruptive and factually incorrect. They changed Croatia to having won, changed participating countries to 39, and added Montenegro as a returning country. I looked at the IP and these are the only two contributions they have made. ] (]) 13:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{edit extended-protected|Eurovision Song Contest 2024|answered=no}} | |||
| Update table to reflect that Latvia awarded 12 points to Estonia in the second semi-final of the Eurovision Song Contest 2024. ] (]) 00:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:22, 3 January 2025
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eurovision Song Contest 2024 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | A news item involving Eurovision Song Contest 2024 was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 14 May 2024. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Misplaced Pages-logo-v2.svg){kind=link}
 | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
Request for comments: votes received and how by Israel
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Should the "Controversies and incidents" section contain a section on Israel votes and media reports in connection to this which relate to more individuals than expected or individuals which would not usually have voted. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Please note that as a prominent controversy is related to the Israel-Hamas war, it is subject to WP:ARBECR. Accordingly, accounts with fewer than 500 edits and 30 days' tenure may not participate. Any comment violating ARBECR may be removed by any editor, and edit warring will not be tolerated. Please keep the discussion respectful: comment on the matter in question, not on other editors. Thank you. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Include per the already above section Yoyo360 (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Include as it definitely impacted the results. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Can you prove that with reliable neutral verifiable sources? If not it can't be implied through wikivoice. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Didn't mean to prove it or to have that exact wording in the article, but when there are neutral verifiable sources that many non-Eurovision fans voted, and the fact that every vote counts, it is extremely likely that that was the case. Again, not necessarily saying that should be in the article though Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- How do you or the publications for that matter know they are "non-Eurovision fans"? Additionally wikivoice cannot go on speculation re: "it is extremely likely that that was the case". It feels like journalistic license is being employed and potentially so crystal ball activities. It also feels like original though from the publications to come to the conclusions that they have. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- The sources are reliable and citing officials from the israeli government. All confirm without a doubt that a campaign for votes happened. This is not subjective. This is factual. The matter at hand here is to decide whether to mention this campaign in the article and a former discussion has already been made. Yoyo360 (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- There is no way to know "All confirm without a doubt that a campaign for votes happened. This is not subjective. This is factual" That all falls under WP:Original Research as it has drawn a conclusion from them which is not necessarily one supported widely. It draws the reader to conclude the votes for Israel are some how tainted or that rules were broken. Which a non-neutral POV.
- Nowhere is it stated any actual rules were broken, or that mass voting by bots happened or similar. It just seems people in other countries got messages about the Israel entry and decided to exercise a vote this year. It doesn't feel like anything more here, the claims additionally feel extremely tabloid. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Once again, the matter at hand is whether or not israel had a voting campaign. And the answer is undoubtedly yes, the several sources provided in the former section confirm it, citing a government official. The impact on the voting is not the topic of our discussion. Yoyo360 (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- The issue I have is a misuse of wikivoice and the non neutral implications of the section. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Once again, as long as we use the sources provided in the former section, the inclusion won't cause a problem as we will just be relaying a fact: Israel campaigned for votes. It is factual. The fact that you see non neutral implications behind this type of sentence is problematic because there is not. And if you think that there's an indirect implication that israel got their points from this campaign, read the sources and ponder one minute... because isn't that what our sources exactly imply already? Including the israeli source ynet. Yoyo360 (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- If all of the RS support there being a campaign to mobilise votes for Israel for political reasons then I don't see how it's an issue to state it in Wikivoice. AlexandraAVX (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Here is an explanation from a reliable source that it was just turnout, ability to vote multiple times without restrictions, and lots of other options.] Not some nefarious political campaign at the heart of why Israel polled well. Only having Israel is the big bad wolf style article belies the more benign and boring reasons set out in the article above. Also remember how in 2016 Eurovision changed to its current format of voting because it was all neighbours voting for each other. This is a storm in a teacup to claim that people voting en mass and multiple times is new. it also belies that mundane reasons exist as well as the nice sexy claims of the big bad Israel trying to rig the contest.
- PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- That RS doesn't say there was no campaign, it explains how low support in numbers for a contestant can still result in a unusually good result for them. If anything the source explains how the voting system and the nature of public votes could enable a campaign.
Second, we have to take into consideration 'motivated reasoning'. "We see this in politics when it comes to turnout in elections and turnout in referendums", explains Cunningham. "When we see turnout in referendums become very low we notice that the results become quite skewed. If turnout in a referendum gets lower than 35% the people who are more motivated, more interested, tend to influence the outcome a little bit more".
AlexandraAVX (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)- No source is going to say “there was no campaign” that is like asking for proof of a negative. What it shows is not all RS are singing the same hymn on Israel and there are plenty of other valid reasons for the televote results beyond the claims of what are essentially Israel rigged it. I think there is a potential blinding to stuff outside of the Israel contentiousness when boring and benign reasons also exist. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- If it is to be included the boring and benign reasons need the same weight on the section as the juicy and sensational claims. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thing is, once again, these are not claims. They're facts. Several sources, including some coming directly from Israel, cite an Israeli government official and diplomat who stated the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs campaigned. Some go as far as detailing they shot videos in at least ten languages demanding people to vote and the whole thing getting 14+ million views. Facts. Not claims. Yoyo360 (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Claims of “these are facts” are unhelpful as you don’t know that, no one here does. All anyone knows is what is reported so a better statement is “as reported in ” not “these are facts” the latter implies infallibility of the sources. Additionally alternate reasons in an RS has been presented. Wikivoice cannot only give one side, as it currently seems to claim Israel votes were nefarious as opposed to the boring and benign reasons which are also a possibility for the televote results. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thing is, once again, these are not claims. They're facts. Several sources, including some coming directly from Israel, cite an Israeli government official and diplomat who stated the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs campaigned. Some go as far as detailing they shot videos in at least ten languages demanding people to vote and the whole thing getting 14+ million views. Facts. Not claims. Yoyo360 (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- If it is to be included the boring and benign reasons need the same weight on the section as the juicy and sensational claims. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- No source is going to say “there was no campaign” that is like asking for proof of a negative. What it shows is not all RS are singing the same hymn on Israel and there are plenty of other valid reasons for the televote results beyond the claims of what are essentially Israel rigged it. I think there is a potential blinding to stuff outside of the Israel contentiousness when boring and benign reasons also exist. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- That RS doesn't say there was no campaign, it explains how low support in numbers for a contestant can still result in a unusually good result for them. If anything the source explains how the voting system and the nature of public votes could enable a campaign.
- The issue I have is a misuse of wikivoice and the non neutral implications of the section. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Once again, the matter at hand is whether or not israel had a voting campaign. And the answer is undoubtedly yes, the several sources provided in the former section confirm it, citing a government official. The impact on the voting is not the topic of our discussion. Yoyo360 (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- The sources are reliable and citing officials from the israeli government. All confirm without a doubt that a campaign for votes happened. This is not subjective. This is factual. The matter at hand here is to decide whether to mention this campaign in the article and a former discussion has already been made. Yoyo360 (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- How do you or the publications for that matter know they are "non-Eurovision fans"? Additionally wikivoice cannot go on speculation re: "it is extremely likely that that was the case". It feels like journalistic license is being employed and potentially so crystal ball activities. It also feels like original though from the publications to come to the conclusions that they have. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Didn't mean to prove it or to have that exact wording in the article, but when there are neutral verifiable sources that many non-Eurovision fans voted, and the fact that every vote counts, it is extremely likely that that was the case. Again, not necessarily saying that should be in the article though Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- No one can know 100% and there are no infallible sources, but we still write statements of fact in Wikivoice. We don't keep repeating "According to Charles Darwin, humans evolved from apes" any time we talk about evolution, even if plenty of people pushing WP:FRINGE theories think it will be disproven any day now.If there's RS reporting that there was a government-sanctioned campaign that didn't actually exist then there would be plenty of reason for other RS to report on how that isn't true or it was uncertain/unclear. If there was a significant disagreement on whether there was or wasn't a government-sanctioned campaign then we should be more careful about using wikivoice. In the absence of any reliable or significant claim that a campaign didn't exist I don't see why we can't state it in wikivoice. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I do not think that the Irish source from a professor is a fringe theory. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thing is we are talking about a campaign for votes. Which according to numerous sources, definitely happened. Which is worth inclusion. We are not talking about how israel got their results, which would very much indeed necessitate all possibilities to be accounted for. We are talking specifically about whether or not to mention the campaign. Which, once again, did happen according to several sources. No matter its influence, the existence of this campaign has been established. So your Irish Independent reference is irrelevant in this specific context. Yoyo360 (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I do not think that the Irish source from a professor is a fringe theory. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Can you prove that with reliable neutral verifiable sources? If not it can't be implied through wikivoice. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Include per others and the already-had discussions { } 20:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Include, obviously. We've already been over this. This is not a proper RfC. See WP:RFC, in particular WP:RFCBEFORE. RfCs are for getting broader community input to help resolve matters for which no consensus can be determined after extensive "local" discussion. But there is no failure to come to a consensus here. "One editor doesn't like the result" is not a consensus failure, and RfCs are not for "asking the other parent" in hopes of getting an answer one might like better. (Aside: RfCs are also for seeking broad community input, from the start, on a proposal that has site-wide implications, like changing a policy or introducing a new guideline. But that is of course not applicable to a minor discussion like this.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- include, as I have mentioned in older discussion. A confirmed vote campaign with government involvement taking place in a song contest with huge and international cultural impact is an incidence of major importance, and something uncommon for the ESC. Inclusion can be warranted, in my opinion. Piccco (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
| WP:ARBPIA –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Include. The issue is not that participating countries advertise their contest entries. That's a no-brainer. The issue is that a government is involved with and admitted that there is a campaign by Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs to vote for them. “The truth is that there was obviously an organized, dedicated effort by Israel supporters to give their votes to Golan… and it clearly drew votes from many who don’t otherwise tune into the Eurovision each year.”
| WP:ARBPIA –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Include per the previous discussion. Also, as SMcCandlish mentioned, I'm still confused about the need to open a RfC when consensus was already pretty clear. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Include: The exact wording to be added hasn't been fully discussed, but it is clear that there is support for including in the earlier discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
| WP:ARBPIA –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2024
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the following paragraph to the end of the "Disqualification of the Netherlands from the final" section, they explain challenges from Serbia, Slovenia, Portugal, Croatia, France, Norway, Spain, as well as a subsequent criminal investigation that was dismissed today.
(taken from Netherlands_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024#Incident_and_subsequent_disqualification)
Ivan Simonović, a member of Serbia's delegation, called the disqualification "unfair", while Slovenia's broadcaster RTVSLO demanded clarifications from the EBU. Portugal, Croatia, France, Norway and Spain also demanded explanations from the EBU regarding incidents that occurred during the contest. The Swedish Police Authority launched an investigation into the incident on the day it was reported, and the case was subsequently handed to the Swedish Prosecution Authority. The investigation was closed on 12 August, with the senior prosecutor Fredrik Jönsson citing a lack of evidence to prove that Klein "was capable of causing serious fear or that had any such intention". Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Done with minor edits for WP:NPOV — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
References
- Simonović, Ivan (2024-05-18). "Песма Евровизије је након Малмеа на прекретници – од кога зависи на коју ће страну превагнути" . RTS. Retrieved 2024-05-18.
- "RTP pede à Eurovisão uma reunião para esclarecer incidentes" (in Portuguese). RTP. 2024-05-15. Archived from the original on 15 May 2024. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
- van Eenennaam, Alexander (2024-07-15). "Verhoren in zaak Joost Klein afgerond: Nederlands OM brengt Zweedse collega's deze week op de hoogte" . Algemeen Dagblad. Retrieved 2024-07-15.
- "Investigation concerning illegal threats in Malmö has been closed | Swedish Prosecution Authority". via.tt.se. 2024-08-12. Retrieved 2024-08-12.
- Blomberg, Linnea (2024-08-12). "Förundersökningen mot Joost Klein läggs ner" . Aftonbladet (in Swedish). Retrieved 2024-08-12.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2024
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change Ukraine televote in Semi-Final 1 from blank to 5 points to Australia. Aero89012 (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
Obsolete source, verifiability violation
The claim
Through social media content, Israeli broadcaster Kan also expressed concerns over alleged antisemitism in Malmö, attributing this to the "Islamisation of Europe".
cites a source that itself only cites a now-deleted Twitter/X account. WP:TWITTER says such posts may only be used as sources if they don't involve third parties, which this does. If this claim can't be substantiated with reliable sources, it should be deleted. LivLovisa (talk) 08:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am not following here. The website ESCplus is used as the source as you mentioned. Thus, TWITTER does not apply here. Additionally, both the post itself and the article have been archived. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- IvanScrooge98 made the edit in question. To be on the safe side, do you know of a different source IvanScrooge98? --Super Goku V (talk) 10:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- I tried to make a quick search and the only other source I found was also directly citing the tweet, though I remember watching the original KAN video making this statement so I’ll see if I can dig it up – unfortunately, many Eurovision websites decided to limit their coverage on Israel in light of the current events so I think it’s going to be hard. In any case I’m also not convinced WP:TWITTER applies when the tweet is included within a larger article from a third-party source.
Thanks for linking toAs for the archive, at least for the moment that may suffice to substantiate the article content. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 11:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)- That lines up with my searches sadly. No problem regarding the links, I think. (Can I ask why that is scratched out?) --Super Goku V (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I simply had not noticed the archive link was already included in the page and I was thanking you for providing it :) So I reworded my comment. Btw, if I find anything I’ll update you. Thanks! ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, so it is... That would have saved me some time. (Off topic, but I just ran the website through the Wayback Machine, which was helpful as that was how I found your edit on March 24th thanks to the auto archiving project archiving on that day. I had tried using the Who Wrote That tool, but that has been down for hours.) In any case, thank you as well and best of luck in your search. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- A claim of that nature requires much more evidence than one reference; why aren't we seeing more articles on it of it was so impactful? It feels more like a click-bait/reactionary article rather than a news report. Also, ESC Plus is listed as a source we should use with "caution"; it's has not gained its full credit as a WP:RS. The 'investigation' of alternatives really was just an editor's verification of the subject matter when what we actually need is additional reputable sources also reporting on it. Grk1011 (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Found this related article by Kan from a few days later: https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan-news/local/730236/. It doesn’t refer to antisemitism when discussing Malmö nor to alleged “Islamization of Europe”, but it cites official travel warnings by the National Security Council. Unfortunately I couldn’t find the original social media video the tweet was reporting. In any case you’re right to say we shouldn’t mention it if it can’t back it up. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- My understanding was that it was a program that aired on KAN, but regardless it does seem better to remove given the struggle to verify it. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ah. Looks like it was already taken care of. Thank you for looking into this. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, didn't know that WP:ESC/S existed. Thank you for the heads up. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Found this related article by Kan from a few days later: https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan-news/local/730236/. It doesn’t refer to antisemitism when discussing Malmö nor to alleged “Islamization of Europe”, but it cites official travel warnings by the National Security Council. Unfortunately I couldn’t find the original social media video the tweet was reporting. In any case you’re right to say we shouldn’t mention it if it can’t back it up. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- A claim of that nature requires much more evidence than one reference; why aren't we seeing more articles on it of it was so impactful? It feels more like a click-bait/reactionary article rather than a news report. Also, ESC Plus is listed as a source we should use with "caution"; it's has not gained its full credit as a WP:RS. The 'investigation' of alternatives really was just an editor's verification of the subject matter when what we actually need is additional reputable sources also reporting on it. Grk1011 (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, so it is... That would have saved me some time. (Off topic, but I just ran the website through the Wayback Machine, which was helpful as that was how I found your edit on March 24th thanks to the auto archiving project archiving on that day. I had tried using the Who Wrote That tool, but that has been down for hours.) In any case, thank you as well and best of luck in your search. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I simply had not noticed the archive link was already included in the page and I was thanking you for providing it :) So I reworded my comment. Btw, if I find anything I’ll update you. Thanks! ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- That lines up with my searches sadly. No problem regarding the links, I think. (Can I ask why that is scratched out?) --Super Goku V (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- I tried to make a quick search and the only other source I found was also directly citing the tweet, though I remember watching the original KAN video making this statement so I’ll see if I can dig it up – unfortunately, many Eurovision websites decided to limit their coverage on Israel in light of the current events so I think it’s going to be hard. In any case I’m also not convinced WP:TWITTER applies when the tweet is included within a larger article from a third-party source.
Revert possible vandalism
I have reverted two edits made by IP address 102.119.220.21 that were both disruptive and factually incorrect. They changed Croatia to having won, changed participating countries to 39, and added Montenegro as a returning country. I looked at the IP and these are the only two contributions they have made. Ktkvtsh (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Misplaced Pages In the news articles
- B-Class Eurovision articles
- High-importance Eurovision articles
- All WikiProject Eurovision pages
- B-Class Sweden articles
- Mid-importance Sweden articles
- All WikiProject Sweden pages
- B-Class television articles
- Mid-importance television articles
- WikiProject Television articles
- Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report