Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2009/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Turkish song title

What should we label the Turkish song title as? I've put it as 'Düm Tek Tek', 'Crazy for You' and some other names. In the song presentation the song title wasn't announced, for some reason. I've labeled it as 'Düm Tek Tek' as we've got more sources at the moment that say it's 'Düm Tek Tek' than other names. -Diggiloo (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The song article seems to explain that the title is onomatapoeic, like we need any more of that in Eurovision :) doktorb _words^deeds 14:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm working to get rid of the "Hadise song" disambiguation because we don't need it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Please express your opinions at the talk page of the song for moving it to an appropriate title. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 18:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This article currently says in hidden comments: "Crazy for You is NOT the English translation of the song", yet at Düm Tek Tek it says at the intro of the article "also known by its English name "Crazy for You"". Which is correct? Camaron | Chris (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm the culprit for both :O "Crazy for You" seems to be an alternate name for the song, but not the official, hence "also known by". There is a difference between English title and translation that seems to be the problem. Since "Dum Tek Tek" seems to be a sound, it cannot be translated into another language (read the article) and therefore has no "translation" while it does have an "english title". Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I see, that now makes sense to me. Camaron | Chris (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

TRT say the song's name is 'Düm Tek Tek/Crazy for you..' in one of their articles, which I showed to Grk1011/Stephen the other day, but i've since lost the link. Being so we should (really) go by what the broadcaster calls the song, once I find the article we should call the song Düm Tek Tek/Crazy for you..? -Diggiloo (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

After all this, I would prefer at least two sources for the name, preferably both by TRT on diff days and such. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Back to Diggiloo's comment, I have also lost the link, I definitely saw it being titles "Düm Tek Tek/Crazy for You". ńăŧħăń - ŧăłķ 21:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I found a link for a news story about the song. This article from TRT seems to support only "Düm Tek Tek". Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Patricia Kaas?

It could be very good if she will represent France in the ESC, but there are only rumors and no confirmed sources...--87.6.176.27 (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess its confirmed now... Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The source given says she is only in negotiations, no final decision has been made. A think we should wait a few days until a press release with a final decision (as claimed in the source) comes out. Hence, I have removed her as confirmed for now. Camaron | Chris (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Its a little confusing the way the articles are worded. The one on ESCToday was titled something like she might, but then the body is worded like she is going to. I say we wait until the broadcaster confirms. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Theme

I see the new theme has been reveled, but yet it is not mentioned anywhere in the article. I would add it myself, but I do not know much about it. I will try to search for information. Greekboy (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added a visual design section, with some information I found, but it needs to be expanded. Who ever has more information, please add. Greekboy (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Map of semi finals

The map that someone created showing the countries participating and voting in each semi final is wrong as UK, Spain and Germany are suppose to vote in Semi Finl 1. but it says otherwise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.81.184 (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The captions are correct, but have been mixed up. Red = SF1, Blue - SF2, however this is reversed for the voters and really should be changed. Also the map is slapped in the participating countries section, but focuses more on the Semi-finals. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 22:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that Blue should not generally be used to color in countries on the map, as blue is generally used to represent bodies of water. :p Greekboy (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Greece and Cyprus in the same semi final? We sure? doktorb _words^deeds 15:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=1857 -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 16:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well there goes the "want to split up neighbours who want to vote for each other" plan then, eh? doktorb _words^deeds 16:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I was a bit surprised as well, but good for Greece and Cyprus! :p Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really. There were still countries from the same pot together last year too. Greekboy (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

This page needs to be semi-protected to prevent random people from altering information to their liking. This always happens during the national final season. Evilperson 20 (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes i agree because of people like us wooohooooo wooot wooot lolk rofl XD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.15.155 (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is too bad yet, and some IPs make some constructive edits to the page. Close to the final and just after semi-protection might be necessary but we are still some months away from that yet. In any case, per WP:SEMI pages should not be protected for vandalism which has not yet occurred. There have certainly been a few cases of vandalism on this page, but I don't think it is out of control enough yet to justify semi-protection. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Song selection dates

Ok, I don't want to be a complete hypocrite, but I was thinking maybe we can include the selection dates for each entry. I still don't support the new column, but say for Greece, since the only thing left is the song to pick, we put in the song column (18 February 2009) to denote that it will be chosen on that date. Any thoughts? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't mind it, as long as it is sourced I'm sure it will be fine, just clicking on the less than 43 participating countries can take a lot of time. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 20:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Selection season is almost over. I'm not sure it is worth it to get into this with even more sourcing. I don't know though. Greekboy (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point in bothering now as songs have been chosen already and such.. -Diggiloo (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources in Table

I know I have asked this before, but do we honestly need so many sources in the table for everything? This is an overview page, I don't think the song, singer, or language needs to be sourced (after it is chosen) unless it is disputed. (like the language for example) Greekboy (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's only an overview table and the sources can be found on the pages of each country. There are way too much sources in this article. Is it really necessary to have 3 sources for every country (1 of Estoday, 1 of Oikotimes and 1 of Eurovision.tv) when the news of the 3 sources are the same? Danoples (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I say remove every source except Eurovision.tv. Mike H. Fierce! 09:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good, assuming there is a eurovision.tv source for each. I feel that its better to have one to back yourself up than none at all. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The article should be able to stand on its own in meeting WP:V, but it can do this with much less sources than it has now. Only disputable information actually needs to be sourced, this does not apply to a lot of the song languages. Citing more than once for one piece of info is not particularly necessary either (unless something is particularly controversial), though there is no rule I know against it, it just takes up space. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a firm outcome to this, but I was bold and took out the sources for the languages at least. I left some of the controversial, or potentially controversial ones in, including ones for songs that have not yet been chosen. I think the next step is to take out the artist and song sources unless controversial. Any further input would be appreciated. Greekboy (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree that no sourcing is needed as a table acts an overview, unless an item is controversial of course. Also there is no need for double sourcing, with the exception of disputed/controversial entries. Imperatore (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I took out the double sources a few days ago and left the eurovision.tv refs, I guess we can give this reduced source thing a chance. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

After reading these comments, I was bold and took out the non-controversial sources. Sorry for hitting minor edit by accident. :p Greekboy (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

from georgian song-"we don't wanna put in"

When this song won the eurovision 2009 in georgia, many people told that georgia will be discvalip. pls tell me if is it tru? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.139.169.129 (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Georgia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009 may answer your question - it looks like last year's conflict in South Ossetia led to Georgia pulling out from the contents, then re-entering after Russia game top marks to Georgia in a different content. There are, apparently, calls for Georgia to boycott (that is, to pull out of the contest again) the contest, but whether this will happen is not yet clear. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 09:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

yes but this song isn't about Putin, this is only simple song and nothing is thre aboute the georgien-russien conflict.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.139.169.129 (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article I referenced above doesn't say anything about the song being political - it simply says that political tensions between Georgia and Russia led to Georgia withdrawing from the contest. If the article doesn't answer your question I don't know what to suggest - Wikipedia:Reference desk maybe? (Incidentally, that is probably a better venue anyway - talk pages like this are really for discussing how to improve their associated articles). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Who are those broadcasters?

Under "Voting", it says "In response to some broadcasters' continued complaints about politically charged, neighbourly and diaspora voting" - who are those broadcasters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjessen (talk • contribs) 12:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Israeli song title

I'm sure we all have our own opinions on how the Israeli song title should be written, but I can we agree on one title for the song, instead of, like, four different ones. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that it is official on eurovision.tv, I think we are safe. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Turkish Song Translation

I have listed the turkish song translation as 'Boom Bang Bang'. Even though this isn't a translation but an equivalent, it's the nearest we'll get to a translation. It has been removed a number of times by a certain user and I think there should be a consensus on it being mentioned in the article. -Diggiloo (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the name of the song is a sound rather than a word or sentence, etc, there is no "translation". However, there would be an "equivalent" as the source provides us. Boom Bang Bang seems like a good fit and I think it doesn't hurt to have it. When you think about it, a translation is basically an equivalent. It says the same thing in a way greater understood; I feel that Boom Bang Bang does this for Dum Tek Tek. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer it not to have a translation personally as it is a drum beat, as stated in the actual article here. I agree with the statement that a translation is an "equivalent" in English, but I don't agree with translating the Turkish drum beat names into English, it just seems stupid in my opinion. ńăŧħăń - ŧăłķ 22:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

We could use a note that will say its an equivalent. It would be a little stupid if it linked to a page that said it had no translation lol. But I think its inclusion will help the reader realize that it isn't just a foreign name; they will be able to identify it as a sound. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what I just said on MSN. You can't really translate the sound a Turkish drum makes - I would agree to writing something that means people can identify the words "Düm Tek Tek" as a drum beat however. I've bolded Stephen's statement there about identifying it as a sound as it is the best option for all parties involved. ńăŧħăń - ŧăłķ 22:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to list it as "Boom Bang Bang" with a note next to it stating that there is no direct translation to it, as it is a sound a Turkish drum makes. I was bold and added it with a note. If anyone has any objections, please feel free to take it out. Greekboy (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Object. If the sound is onomatopoeic then it cannot be translated! The sound of this drum, in Turkish, from where the song is from, is Dum Tek Tek. That is its sound. There can be no translation, only "equivilance", which is what the source says (and that is NOT an official translation site, for one). doktorb _words^deeds 19:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why it will be a note that its not a translation, only an equivalent. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly why there is a note next to "Boom Bang Bang". If you click on it, it says that "Düm Tek Tek" is the sound that a drum makes, thus there is no direct or official translation for it. "Boom Bang Bang" is simply the English equivalent.". Greekboy (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source and therefore cannot be listed. The note recognizes that the phrase is not in the English language and that explanation will suffice. Until an official source states that the sound can have this equivalent phrase in English, this should not be listed. Also I'd like to add that no consensus on this issue has been reached as several people have objected to this in the discussion above so no agreement has been made. Evilperson 20 (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Who has qualified the Turkish song translation to be Boom Bang Bang? I have not seen this anywhere and the source provided is unreliable. As far as I'm concerned there is no translation to the title. The reasoning provided to support "Boom Bang Bang" could support a number of English variants. This should be removed and left with no translation. Evilperson 20 (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

We have discussed this before and I suggest you take a look a few sections up. The source is the where the translation came from and I have problems with the sites reliability, though it's not the best. Without a translation, we are showing that somehow Dum Tek Tek is an English phrase or saying, which it most definitely is not. I am going to reinstate Boom bang bang for now. The chain of events goes discussion, then action. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the note that is written and referred to beside the current translation is enough of an explanation. There is no need to find equivalent terms especially when they have not been provided with an official source. There is simply no translation and therefore there should be a hyphen as in other counties with the note beside it that explains the situation. Evilperson 20 (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed, but none of the songs have "official" sources for their translations. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that those songs can be translated. "Dum Tek Tek" is a sound and slapping on an irrelevant equivalent phrase with no source is an issue. The translations for the other songs have been more or less confirmed on official sources.Evilperson 20 (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Dum Tek Tek is the only translation with a source, whether you approve of its reliability or not. There has not been any reason to doubt its accuracy, so it stands. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No...Dum Tek Tek has no translation therefore you can't source something that doesn't exist. An equivalent phrase that someone has put on a website is not official and it can be doubted since clearly that information is written from someones individual perspective. If what you're saying is put into action, I can go and source any information from any website and write about it on wikipedia. But besides that, I don't understand what the misunderstanding is here. Dum Tek Tek is unable to be translated because no such thing exists and equivalent phrases are needless; the note will suffice. Evilperson 20 (talk) 07:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The note is enough, there is no translation therefore just a note next to the hyphen is enough to explain it. ńăŧħăń - ŧăłķ 23:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is fine as it is, there is no clear translation so a hyphen is appropriate, with a note stating what a source thinks the alternate sound is. If it is reliable there is no reason to exclude it, and if alternate suggestions on English equivalent sounds are found they can be added as well. There is no requirement it needs to be official, in fact Wikipedia articles are supposed to built on secondary sources (often third party) per WP:V. Camaron | Chris (talk) 09:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Language issues

This article is being effected like last years with disputes over languages. The Bosnia and Herzegovina entry is currently marked as in Serbian and is sourced as it is controversial per WP:V. I have removed the following note which was inserted when changing the song language back to Bosnian, although the source saying otherwise was left??:

<!-- Please stop changing the language for Bosnia and Herzegovina. If you understand the bosnian language, then you will know that the songtext is in bosnian. There is a mistake in the reference. -->

There are several problems with this:

1. Determining disputed article content by personal views made from listening to a song without sources is a type of original research.
2. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia functions by verifiability not truth. Hence content in articles should reflect what sources actually say.
3. WP:BURDEN makes clear that those adding content are obliged to find sources which back up their views, one source has been provided for Serbian, I have seen none for Bosnia and Herzegovina which show this source given was a mistake.

Hence, I have gone along with the existing source for now, though I overall don't really mind which one is used, as long as it used appropriately within policy. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As both languages (Serbian and Bosnian) are very alike, I'd put the language as Bosnian as the band is from Bosnia & Herzegovina. I will ask around though to see if it's Bosnian or Serbian though :) -Diggiloo (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Reading the language articles the languages appear to be mostly, perhaps almost entirely, the same, this appears to be dominantly a political issue. I am sympathetic to the idea of just having all the languages to local dialect e.g. Bosnia to Bosnian, Croatia to Croatian, if it resolves the issue as it is logical, as in the wider context it is clear sources disagree on this issue. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd put the language as Bosnian as the band is from Bosnia & Herzegovina - That doesn't make sense, Bosnian is the language of the Bosniaks, not the language of Bosnia and Hercegovina. BiH has three official languages. --androl (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The source currently used does not make sense. It makes a comparison between Serbian and Bosnian, and comes to the correct conclusion that the language in the song is not Serbian, but then jumps to the conclusion that the song actually is in a third language, Croatian. Without any better sources there is no reason to dispute that the song is in the local dialect for Sarajevo, Bosnian. 83.227.38.65 (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There have been two different sources so far, and numerous IPs have cheerfully ignored both and changed the text to whatever their personal version of the truth is. The current reference is an attempt to address the issues that various IP editors apparently had with the esctoday reference. I suspect that the best solution may simply be to semi-protect the page in order to force discussion here? Frankly I don't care what the article says, just so long as the text matches the reference. Alternatively I could just decide that the song is actually sung in Te Reo Māori...! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are two sources supporting that the song is in Bosnian (though the differences are minimal), a newspaper and the homepage of a web-radio station . Neither one is in English. The newspapers short statement translated into English says "The group from Sarajevo, "Regina", performed "Bistra Voda" in the Bosnian language...". 83.227.38.76 (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Source 1 and source 2 - repeating them because when I clicked on them I came back to this page ;-)

I ran the first one through an online translation tool and got this - it looks to me that the reference is fine. If no one objects I'm going to add this in in the next hour or so. To be honest, this seems to be such a contentious issue that I think multiple references are a good idea, so I'll add this reference to the existing one, and in the meantime I'll run your second reference through a translator. Cheers! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that works. Someone had put all three languages so I just changed it to Serbo-Croatian for the time being because according to the article, it seems to be the general term to refer to all three languages. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian language is not a language of communication, but an academic phrase, that phrase is used by those supporting brotherhood and unity policy and has nothing to do with reality. In fact the Republic of Serbia was the last country to drop the official nature of that language of the Yugoslavs (now found in rare numbers), Serbia changed its official language from the greater nationalistic Serbo-Croatian to just Serbian in 2006. This is why it is unacceptable to use Serbo-Croatian as a general term and as the term describing languages in this era. -- Imbris (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion? Maybe an alternative? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You should preach me about being constructive? The only way is to list in alphabetical order Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian. Bosnia and Herzegovina is a multicultural society, so nobody should mind the full list of its official languages. -- Imbris (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It will not be sung in a selection of languages. According to the above we have found that Bosnian is what it is considered to be sung in. Please provide a source that specifically says it is sung in all of those. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Your negative approach is vibrant, stop playing the role of defender of great unity, you know what I mean (Dzole said it best). See Differences between standard Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian. -- Imbris (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe we can do exactly that, unless a reference can be found that says it is sung in more than one language - what we claim in the article needs to be verifiable, i.e. it needs to be supported by one or more reference and not be the product of original reserach. Frankly I'm beginning to understand why eurovision.tv make no mention of the language: here, here or here. At this point I'm going to suggest that we list the language as "disputed, a Serbo-croat language" and provide references previously used to support Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian with a footnote explaining that sources disagree and no official statement has yet been issued. I don't think that this will end the removal/replacement of cited text, but we can deal with that if and when it occurs. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 09:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I've asked for some wider input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina#Eurovision Song Contest 2009. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The list should rather be left blank instead of your proposal "disputed, a Serbo-Croatian language". Also in previous ESCs the entry was in the Official languages of the Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian. So what is the problem on listing the three. -- Imbris (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that we can't cite a reference that lists all three. Obviously if such a reference could be found that would be great.

Why do you feel that the entry should be left blank? I'm not necessarily saying I disagree, I'm just curious as to why you think it's a good solution.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Cite the Constitution of the country, in Bosnia and Herzegovina there is no contest, but a hand picked selection based on the decisions of the few. In BiH everything must be writen three times.

Blank is better than OR, and it would be pure OR to list extinct languages like Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language. The blank field would lead people to even more questions, and that would be good (in my book).

That blank field could have a reference towards the Constitution of the country and to all other reliable sources that claim the language of the song.

Imbris (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not saying that the article should state the language is Serbo-Croatian; I'm saying that it could say "a Serbo-Croatian language", i.e. a language that has it's roots in the common language (I'm open to suggestions on how to rephrase that if the term "Serbo-Croatian" isn't appropriate). I'm not suggesting any WP:OR - the references thus far provided are all for different languages derived from a common ancestor - I'm suggesting we acknowledge this, and list the ancestor instead of trying to decide which of the competing candidates (Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian) should be listed.

Citing the BiH constition would not be OK: we need to cite something that informs the reader what language the song is sung in, not leave the reader interpreting the constitution and potentially arriving at a very confused conclusion (e.g. "is the song sung simultaneously in three languages? Or are all three languages represented in the song?")

Whatever decision we reach, some sort of foot note does seem like the logical way forward - this issue is clearly confusing, and we need to make some attempt to explain the confusion to the reader.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have understood you perfectly, you want the name of a non-exsisting language to be written with a slight grammatical a in prefix and this would be by your account a good way to give the reader more info?

The reader would not get more info by using that particular phrase because Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are not ofspring of the Croatian or Serbian language (Serbo-Croatian, Croato-Serbian, etc.). The Croatian or Serbian language as it was officialy been called in Croatia was an artificial Constitutional phrase, as was during the Kingdom of Yugoslavia Serbo-Croato-Slovene language.

The reader should be presented by the current constitutional phrase, that being Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian (simmilar language is one of the official languages at the Hague tribunal). This is the safest way to go. And it is not original research, quoting the constitution of the land in question.

Even if some would say that Bosnia and Herzegovina doesn't have the Deyton Constitution, but the 1992 Constitution is still valid because the Dayton has not proclaimed it invalid.

If not using the BCS formula, then leave the field in the table blank and let the future decide on it.

With respect. -- Imbris (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless the constitution says specifically that "Bistra voda" is sung in Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian, which it most likely does not, then it is a textbook example of original research. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I want the name of a language-family used, with an explanation accompanying it. If you're unhappy with the term "Serbo-Croat", that's fine - all I'm after is to list the name of the language-family that the three languages (Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian) belong to, with an accompanying note explaining that different sources have attributed the song to each of these three languages, and that all three languages belong to a common language-family. The reason I feel this is a good solution is that it notes that several differing sources exist, attributing the song to one of several languages, and it gives the reader sufficient information to understand why this is the case - without bogging them down in constitutional law. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoever said we should list the language as "disputed", we shouldn't. We should only list something as disputed if it's disputed in the real world (and of relevance). A dispute here on the talk page does not warrant marking something as disputed in the article. BalkanFever 10:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that was me, and point taken. My aim was to have a note explaining that different sources say different things, rather than suggesting that there was an actual dispute. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

We should set the language set to "Bosnian". I believe that the source supporting that, an online newspaper, is the only reliable source. The source claiming the language is Serbian, I believe was this, and has now removed all mention of the language. The third source, a personal homepage that in a footnote is claiming that the language is Croatian, is a bit self-contadicting. Also further down in the comments, the person who added that footnote states that it is wrong and will be corrected to Bosnian as a response to a comment.

PS. The rest of my comment is a bit OR, but I feel the need to comment on the arguments at 4lyrics. Both the argument claiming Croatian and the one claiming Bosnian are wrong since the spelling "ij", "i" and "e" is not guaranteed to always differ between the languages as explained in the entries for the these languages. Cheers 83.227.37.170 (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

To someone who does not know anything about the language situation, Bosnian would surely make the most sense as the country the song is from is Bosnia, but I kinda like Flag's idea of naming the language family because one could technically argue that it is sung in any of the languages since they are so close. 4Lyrics is not a "homepage" it is a reputable website specializing in Eurovision lyrics, just as reliable as say ESCToday and Oikotimes, which specialize in news. It's natural for webmasters to correct errors on their pages, even big newspapers and such do that. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if 4lyrics is a reliable source I'd tend to agree that "Bosnian" would make the most sense - possibly with a footnote explaining the similarities with other languages. Like you, I'm unfamiliar with the language situation - when I was at school we learnt about "Serbo-Croat languages", but that was a long, long, time ago and I gather the academic consensus has changed since then - I suspect that's what Imbris is picking up on - my incorrect terminology (which was in no way intended to be partisan or offensive, apologies if anyone took it that way). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The source 4lyrics speaks of the song being sung in Croatian, this was confirmed by the translators Todd B and Luke Fisher + the moderators comment of Nathan Waddell. Since the song represents Bosnia and Herzegovina it should list also Bosnian language. -- Imbris (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that suggestion is that it isn't clear to anyone unfamiliar with Bosnian and Croatian why "Bosnian" would be listed when the reference says only "Croatian". After all, other nations' songs are sung in a non-native language, yet are only listed as being sung in one language. I realise in this case Bosnian is very similar to Croatian, but I'm unconvinced that this similarity is sufficient to justify making a claim unsupported by the reference. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

We have at least one reliable source that we could use, supporting that the language is Bosnian. My problem with the 4lyrics source is that it is in some way disputed further down in the comments. Also being a native speaker I would say that the languages are similar enough that the short lyrics aren't enough to identify the language completely. One has to listen to the pronunciation. As the Wikipedia pages of these languages says; It is true that Serbian usually changes "ije" to "e", but not always. It is also true that Croatian usually uses different name for the month May, but not always. This leads of course to a lot of confusion if only viewing the text. Also, stating in the article that the song is in Serbo-Croation or all tree languages, simply because of the similarities, one could do the same thing for the Serbian and Croatian entry, 83.227.*-guy 83.227.39.1 (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point - any reason why we can't just say "Bosnian" (i.e. make no mention of Croatian or Serbian), using one or both of the references for Bosnian provided above? When I checked out the references they looked OK to me - i.e. they seemed to be reliable. (stating "a Serbo-Croatian language" is a less-than ideal solution, and once I think we should only consider if we're unable to find a satisfactory reference to support a more specific claim. I suspect - though I can't see any references right now - that both the Croatian and Serbian entries have references supporting the claims made by those entries). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

What does "Greater nationalistic Serbo-Croatian" mean? :D

I've changed from "Bosnian, Croatian" to just "Croatian", because the source just says so - nowhere does it say Bosnian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drivast (talk • contribs) 13:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The web page for the source is currently down for some reason, a cached version can be found at [1]. If the web page is down permanently then a web archive or similar link can be provided instead, sources should not normally be removed purely because the linked web page is dead. Camaron | Chris (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Individual entries

Resolved

You may not notice because we've used it for a while and recognize it, but "individual entries" does not really make sense. Individual entries as opposed to overall entries? It seems like it should be links to the songs since they are the "entries" by the countries "individually", but that is not what it is. The template should technically be "Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009" as that is its matching category and I think the subject of the articles would be much more obvious. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree 'Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009' would be a better name for the section and template given what the template actually does i.e. show the countries, not the actual entries. Camaron | Chris (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize that you responded lol. Should I start to move them or do you think I will run into some resistance? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

to save you from a long response, just know I agree on the change. Afkatk (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok then I will go through and change them. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Claim that John Casey designed the 1997 set

I note that the article states that John Casey designed the set in 1997 in Dublin, and this information is duly referenced. However, I believe that this is not true. IMBD lists Paula Farrell as the production designer. In the souvenir programme for 1997, Paula Farrell is also given credit, and at the time of the contest there were several interviews with her about her design -but I can't find anything online. John Casey worked as a design assistant on the last three Dublin contests, including 1994 which Paula Farrell also designed, and 1995 when the chief designer was Alan Farquharson.

89.100.216.54 (talk) 05:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It states that he was "involved" in '94 and '95, not that he did it himself. The article does assert that he did it all in '97 though. IMDB is not a great source, and it could be that Paula Farrell helped in '97 and was the only one available for comment, we don't know, so keep looking for another source if you would like to change it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

'Jan Jan' or 'Nor Par'?

What song title is Armenia's song? I wonder because it is edited a bit about this and it would be good to find the name of the song has! /85.230.110.58 (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the official Eurovision Song Contest website, eurovision.tv, it's Jan Jan. I have no idea where "Nor Par" is coming from. Cheers, This flag once was red^jokes_pranks 16:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where it is coming from either and it's starting to get annoying. Even if the song had an alternative name, this article only reflects the name it used at Eurovision. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well some Swedish web sites are calling the song "Nor Par", and on the Swedish Wikipedia they will call it "Nor Par (Jan Jan)" /85.230.111.234 (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well the Swedish wiki calls it Jan Jan now ;) The EBU has already announced its name as "Jan Jan", it can't be the other. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No they are call it 'Nor Par (Jan Jan)'. /85.230.111.36 (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The EBU call it Jan Jan, so per previous precedent that should be the name used in this article. Other projects may be different for various reasons, with this kind of thing being determined by local consensus. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It was originally nor par and they changed the title to jan jan because it had some kind of connotation with the turkish language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.43.95 (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Commentators and Spokespersons

Hi, don't you want start now the list of this theme? In portuguese wikipedia, i've started already, and you can wacth rigth here (to spokepersons) and here (for the commentators) bye João P. M. Lima (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus was reached last year at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2008 to not have a list of commentators and spokespersons within the main ESC year article (e.g. this one) but to have them mentioned on the individual entry pages. There has not been any discussion on creating a separate page for commentators and spokespersons though, and I do not object to it. What is done on other Wikipedia project languages is up to local consensus on that project. Camaron | Chris (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you would want to do it this way. It's more relevant and convenient to have it on the eurovision page so you can look up the people from the eurovision page rather than the other way around. that would require knowing who the spokesperson is to associate them with eurovision instead of knowing what eurovision is to associate it with the spokesperson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.43.95 (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better to continuing putting them on the main Article Page instead of every country's page. What you could do is start putting all 42 in now onto the Main Page, and leave blank those who are unsure, does that sound like a good compromise? 86.165.183.148 (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The point is that we do not want them at all on the contest page. The person who commentated during a specific broadcast is too minor to be of value for the entire contest. With the "country in esc year" pages we are making pages that relate to the different aspects of that country's participation in that year, which includes who commentated and who was the spokesperson for the specific country. It's much more neat that way and puts the information where it is most relevant. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It has more to do with the contest than the countries participation in it. I checked many countries participation pages as it were for 2008 and the commentator and spokesperson information is not included there. This is especially important this year with big events like terry wogan not being the commentator for england and sirusho stirring up controversy. People are not going to find the information in this "much more neat" manner. I can't find it anywhere here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.43.95 (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Would it be an idea to put all commentators and spokespersons in a separate section for 1957 - 2009 instead of having them all on each Eurovision Main Page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.228.212 (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Georgia Broadcasting

Does anyone know if the ESC will be broadcast in Georgia (on Georgian Public TV) now that it has withdrawn?? If so, we need to put it under the broadcasters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.124.3 (talk) 09:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Rehearsals

I've scanned the article completely, and I do not have a clue when the rehearsals are on. Does anyone know? Leave a comment on my talk page. A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 16:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

the first rehearsals will occur next sunday (May 3rd), with the rehearsals of the opening and interval acts, the rehearsals of the countries acts will star that week to, I think it will be on May 11th (one day before the 1st semi-final), but I've read that the "countries" will go to Moscow in the beginning of May, so the rehearsals should start at least May 3rd. The stage is almost finished, and they are making/producings the ligths sistems to each music (and all the effects and things like that), on April 23rd the stage was 80% ready :) João P. M. Lima (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Trying to add a new section with reference but they're spam blocked

Can anyone help with this?

I tried to add this but apparently one or more of my refernces is spam blocked. Any idea how I can find out which one without removing and re-subitting each one by one?

Problem sorted!!!! (It was a site about petitions so wise to note for future refernce that that word is in the spam list!)

--Mapmark (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Octoshape

I haven't been able to find any reference to the Octoshape plugin on the eurovision.tv page, or on the Octoshape webpage. Is there any source stating that Octoshape will in fact be used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.58.199.119 (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

When you try to watch it, it will say you need Octoshape. There is no stream to try as of yet, so you will not get that prompt. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of contraversial content

The content I added last night about the growing anger over Russia's human rights record and potential demonstration centrered around Eurovision is IMHO a perfectly legitimate issue for this wiki page but was removed without anyone stating a reason. If the content goes against Wiki policy then of course it should be removed but just because material is contraversial is not a reason to remove it. In fact it is our duty to reflect all the genuine issues.

The policy of Wiki is clear: "When adding content to this page which may be challenged, it must be verified by a reliable source"; all my sources were certified and reliable. "Disputed content which is not sourced appropriately will to be removed" This is fair enough and I agree with it, but this was not the case in this instance - the content is not disputed, it is fact and was entered entirely honourably.

If you want to remove this content please explain why on your notes. Otherwise such action could potentially be considered vandalism and the remover may be considered for action him/herself. --Mapmark (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Your writing was sensationalistic. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I may try to work in this since its related enough, but please, how you wrote it isn't good. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

OK ViperSnake, thanks for taking the time to write that. I partly accept your crticism, perhaps there were some elements of my contribution that may appear a tad sensational. I would ask you to bear in mind though that such discrimination from the Moscow Mayor has caused deep offence to people and that while I accept your point about soapboxes, this is perfectly legitimate issue for the page - especially considering the audience,the inflamaory nature of the Mayors remarks and the forthcoming demonstration on the very day of the contest. I will attempt to make a re-write and of course you can attempt that too. I am not precious about my writing style and I'm happy to make changes suggested by constructive criticism. We are all asked to respect each other as wikipedians and I thank you for your words, but I hope that you can see how that for someone to have simply deleted all mention of the situation (not sure who that was) without even the midicom of an explanation, such behaviour can easily inflame a delicate situation. Best wishes, Mark --Mapmark (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely re-wrote the section, the protests do seem a bit notable for mentioning, so I improved the sourcing and style of it. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I see where you are coming from and much admire what you've done there ViperSnake. Thanks again for taking the time to look at this issue and I think you've done it well and it will help me in writing future contributions of the Wikipedia. Cheers, Mark--Mapmark (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

HD broadcast

Any list of those who send the event in HD? Many sports championships articles here on Wiki have an additional list of HD broadcasters. Jørgen88 (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think its necessary to go into that much detail. A broadcast is a broadcast. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

There should probably be a List of Eurovision Song Contest broadcasters which could include HD info chandler ··· 03:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Results

does anyone know when the results of the 1st semi-final get out? i'm waiting them since yesterday, but neuther eurovition.tv, estoday or teh oiktimes give it... :( since I remember it's not very common the results take such a long time to get out of EBU or i'm wrong? bye João P. M. Lima (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

i've just read that the results of the semmi-finals just get out after the big final, so we have to wait until saturday/sunday, to know who wim both semi-finals :S (you can read it here in spanish) João P. M. Lima (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

ESC2010: Breaking News

Eurovision 2010 will be held on May 18,20, and 22- these are provisional dates, but incidentally the final is schedules for the same day as that of the Champions League, said Svante few minuts ago :D (but i don't like very much the ideia of the final be in the same day of the final of the Champions League :S João P. M. Lima (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe then its time to start a Eurovision Song Contest 2010 article. There is also the news from earlier that the EBU will give an extra effort to bring back Italy, Austria and Monaco to ESC2010 for example. And its only days left until we know next years host city to. Thats my suggestions.--Judo112 (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No, do not start it. They will delete it once again like they always do. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL There is no need to start an article, as a future contest is not guaranteed.doktorb _words^deeds 16:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, that is pure bull... The ESC is an annual contest that's been held 54 years in a row. Ratings are higher than ever. Of course 2010's contest has been guaranteed for a very long time. There is a greater chance that there will be an ESC in 2011 and 2012 than that there will be Olympic Summer Games in 2020, yet I don't see a WP:CRYSTAL tag anywhere on the 2020, 2024 or 2028 Summer Games pages. TrondM (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

i think that is the time to do it... it only left 3 days to know the host city, we alredy know the dates, and 3 countries are confirm. The semi-final voting will change, it will be equal to the final 50/50 and not like past year and this one, where only one country is saved by jury (but this has to be confirm by EBU yet, it should be in the last press conference, but oiktimes stoped on the ESC2010 dates). I think that is more tham time, portuguese, french, azerbaijan, russa, etc wikipedias have already criated the article, i don't belive that they go to delete the article with just 3 days left to know the principal, and the article will not be a "cristal ball", it's more than confirm that the contest will happen, and they can't use the argument that it can expode a nuclear bomb before the contest and the same doesn't happen (like happened to me in portuguese wikipedia last year), because seeing the tinghs like that, we neither know if saturday (or tomorow), the show will realy happen, so, i think that is the time to create it, and if the english wikipedia create the article, in one or to days, most of the wikis that write about eurovision will create them articles to so... LET'S GO!!! ESC 2010 IS HERE!!! :D João P. M. Lima (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No, ESC 2010 is not here. Also talk pages are not forums. Please stay on topic. doktorb _words^deeds 17:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you bothered to ask Judo since you went ahead and made the page anyway. It's fine as long as everything is sourced I guess. No "possibles" this year, I want only confirmed. That page will not turn into a maybe zoo again! Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Spain not voting in Semi 2

I went ahead and added a Spanish language source which confirms the details we probably already know, that TVE overran a tennis match and Spain could not vote at all. Mike H. Fierce! 01:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Voting order?

How come Norway are listed 17th but voted last in the contest? I'm guessing there's some explanation...  GARDEN  22:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably because Norway was the runaway winner and they wanted to let the representative cry on-air and thank Europe or whatever he did. Mike H. Fierce! 22:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The commentators told that they had problems connecting with Norway and so they skipped it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.247.187 (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I could buy that with a country like Azerbaijan all the way out in the middle of nowhere but not in one of the richest nations in the world. Mike H. Fierce! 02:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

In answer to you're question. The running order of singers and voting orders are drawn separatly. If you look at the ruuning and voting order fir the other entries you will see this is true for everyone. 82.132.136.166 (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Let the conspiracy theories start. I bet it was the primeminister of Norway that sent an sms to Putin to make Norway last or else he would invade Russia and insert a new world order with communism... Jørgen88 (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

An SMS? Surely the PM would be more technologically adept!  GARDEN  22:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not the US lol xD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jørgen88 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason for Norway voting last has been now been clarified. The Norwegian televote failed. Source: http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/14126 Vauxhall1964 (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Final Table default

Shouldn't the result table be automatically stored by the results..? It's more logically now that the contest is done! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jørgen88 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Semi-finals results

The semi-finals results are available here: http://www.eurovision.tv/page/moscow2009/the-participants/semifinal1 and here http://www.eurovision.tv/page/moscow2009/the-participants/semifinal2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidebook (talk • contribs) 23:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

unlock this

This article has a padlock on it. Please unlock it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imsinoway (talk • contribs) 23:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, since the article is locked for a reason, why don't you post the changes you want made here on the talk page and someone can edit the article for you? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain why it was locked since you've stated "it is locked for a reason"? What is the reason, and why is it still locked?99.141.240.227 (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit??? I think not. --76.93.86.242 (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You can edit, just make an account and get at least 100 edits and prove that you are not a vandal. Anyone can edit, it's just not as easy as you would like. Regardless, if you say what you need changed, we are more than happy to make it for you if it is a reasonable request. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

We Are Our Mountains - Armenia/Azerbaijan Controversy

Can anyone add We Are Our Mountains Controversy [2][3][4]. DVoit 23:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Day.az is not neutral, it's a propaganda machine. While you're at it, you can also add that Azerbaijan censored the phone number of the Armenian entry, making it impossible for the Azerbaijanis to vote for Armenia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.86.242 (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You have anything to back that up? Plus how would no one be able to vote? Are you telling us Azerbaijan didn't use the common XXXXXXXXXX-[numbers 01 to 25] system? chandler ··· 04:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Karabakh is NOT "disputed territory"! It is by whole world recognized territory of Azerbaijan(www.un.org), which is under occupation by Armenia, that is why in final, mistake in 'postcard' was corrected. Please change comment in "Controversies"->'Armenia–Azerbaijan' —Preceding unsigned comment added by E.mammadli (talk • contribs) 19:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

By Armenia laying claim to it, according to the source which you decided to delete, that makes it disputed. A dispute is when the two sides don't agree. If it is by law Azerbaijani and recognized as such, that does not mean that Armenia's claim to ownership just does not exist, that is what makes it a dispute. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Why was the info about the Iranian monument in the Azeri "postcard" removed? --76.93.86.242 (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The user Goldorack keeps on reverting the corrections ( 16:34, 19 May 2009 131.114.129.28 (talk) (86,388 bytes) (The Nagorno Karabakh Republic is a de facto independent state (hence there is surely "such a thing"). The respective wiki article is cited.) (undo) ) done in the section concerning the Armenian monument controversy. In my opinion the sentence "Azerbaijan complained to the EBU that the video clip was unacceptable due to the fact that the statue was on Azerbaijani land" should read as "... the statue is situated on a land claimed by Azerbaijan." The land cannot belong to a country (Azerbaijani land) if the latter has no legal authority and physical presence in the land. In order not to go deep into endless debates about the legal status of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, I suggest a neutral formulation "a land claimed by Azerbaijan" favoring neither Armenian version (Nagorno-Karabakh Republic) nor Azerbaijani (Azerbaijani land). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.114.129.28 (talk)

To be fair, it's not just Goldorack, it's also me. I reverted you because your version failed WP:NPOV: your edit suggested that Nagorno-Karabakh is a republic, which is the point of view of Armenia, but not of the rest of the world. The de facto government of Nagorno-Karabakh is not internationally recognised; the de jure status (the status in international law) is that Nagorno-Karabakh is legally part of Azerbaijan. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

My comment intended to clarify for the reader why the monument was included in the Armenian postcard. The phrase "the statue was on Azerbaijani land" leads to a questionable conclusion that the complaint of Azerbaijan is fully justified. The monument was erected in the area populated by Armenians by an Armenian architect. Thus, the the complaint of Azerbaijan based solely on a fact that this territory was once a part of Soviet Azerbaijan is at least dubious. Therefore I insist on a more neutral formalation of "a land claimed by Azerbaijan" than the Azerbaijani point of view at the moment present in the article.

Who and why considers any image by Aysel and Arash as "claim on Iranian territory"? That's puzzling. Isn't Arash from Iran, and has admitted on numerous ocassions to have Azeri roots? If so, isn't he, as the second vocalist and part of the official duet, entitled to show at least one image of his homeland? What is so strange, wrong or belligerent about it? His presence, and being fully a part of the official entry of Azerbaijan in Eurovision 2009, as well as being partly of Iranian Azeri heritage, makes it fully OK to show any Iranian Azeri imagery, doesn't it? --Goldorack (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC

Tiko310 (talk)How was my edit a statement? Of course it was controversial. Azerbaijan and Eurovision objected at an Armenian monument being depicted in the clip because its on supposed "Azeri" land, but Eurovision allowed Azerbaijan to show a monument that is in Iran! That is hypocritical of Eurovision and Azerbaijan. —Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC).

Tiko310 (talk)And yes, the Armenian number in Azerbaijan was blocked out. That is a fact.

Stop removing the info on the monument in Iran. Nothing is being discussed here. Tiko310 (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You're in the wrong section, there are two more below. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

2 Grk1011. Why do you keep removing my corrections in this section. Could you first explain your reasons here? As I mationed (above) the wording now is far from neutral and tends to favour Azerbaijani point of view. Any comments? Exciton, 24 May 2009, 23:54 CET —Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC).

I agree. The wording is far more neutral now and favors Azerbaijan. And why is the title changed..Tiko310 (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

'Controversy' section lacks 'Georgia's withdrawal' sub-section

Subj Netrat (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That was THE controversy."We Don't Wanna Put In - Georgia's Eurovision mockery of Russia"[5]and the article, " ‘We Don't Wanna Put In' deemed too political by the European Broadcasting Union."[6] Strange to not see it mentioned in the controversy section. 99.141.240.227 (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The controversy section is new, last day or so I believe. I think it's more relevant in the participation section where it currently is. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Sure it should be mentioned in the participation section but in depth it should be under controversies. Mike H. Fierce! 05:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Romania

Watching the BBC coverage - they seemed to suggest the song was mimed and actually sung by someone standing at the side of the stage (who you can just about see in the coverage wearing a blue dress). Any RS on this matter? --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I know this is OR, but it appeared that blue-dress girl was a backing vocalist. RS either way would be good though. Krytenia (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Greece also had a sixth person lurking around at the back of the stage. Unless anyone finds a source saying otherwise I would assume they were backing vocalists who were not (for whatever reason) dancers. Madraykin86 (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Russian Police Gay Bashing Recruitment

Perhaps something could added to the section dealing with LBGT protests in Moscow concerning how the police will not issue permits for gay groups to organize, but will give them to groups known to attack gays protesters, clearly encouraging violence towards them. This was on NPR's "The World" May 15th so an online source would need to be found. 24.24.244.132 (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Only information relevant to the Eurovision Song Contest will be included. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This could be added to the 'contraversies' section. It is relevant to the contest..the link between the Gay Pride demonstration and Eurovision was made in numerous media reports across Europe, while the Swedish performer and one of the Dutch performers (possibly others too) made public statements about this situation . Vauxhall1964 (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Jury results

All the jury results will be revealed in the following week as Svante said in a press conference regarding the Spanish situation this week. The first ones are revealed from Romania here. These have to fit somewhere into the article surely. Nathan | ^talk 19:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I would assume that we would need some additional scoreboards or maybe this can be used on the jury page to make it more useful? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Full jury results released today: [7]. Should be included in a new scoreboard table imo. Nathan | ^talk 21:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Scoreboard - Final

Shouldn't the scoreboard for the final be ordered by the countries revealing their results as stated on the atricle page? MSalmon (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Errors in the final scoreboard

The points given by some countries do not sum to 58. These are Azerbaijan, Denmark, Germany, Albania and Belgium. Unfortunately I can't find the correct scoreboard anywhere, so your help will be appreciated. -- Image of me (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The corrections are:

In Denmark's "Voters" column, the 4 point score appears twice (for Sweden and Malta). It should read Sweden 4, Malta 0.

In Germany's column, the 4 point score is missing. It should be Malta 4.

In Azerbaijan's column, the 1 point score is missing. It should be Lithuania 1.

In Belgium's column, the 1 point score appears twice (for France and Lithuania). It should read France 1, Lithuania 0.

In Albania's column, the 10 point score is missing. It should be Turkey 10.

Barni100--Barni100 (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barni100 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I fixed it. --Image of me (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Controversy about Iran

Yes indeed the singer Arash is Iranian but the reel was about the republic of Azerbaijan. Depicting an Iranian site in the republic of Azerbaijan's reel, in a context when certain groups in that Republic (supported by outside forces) are claiming Iranian territory adds to the controversy. Iran had earlier protested against such controversies, regarding Tabriz and persian gulf. Wait and you will see a lot of iranian publications are protesting this act. unlike repuboic of Azerbaijan and Armen that are accusing each other deliberately, Iranians are not accusing the officials from the republic of Azerbaijan of this. The Russian organizers might have done this indepentently, though there might have been some lobbies by certain groups. nevertheless the whole thing is controversial and has caused anger among Iranians--Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

We need proof that it was a Eurovision controversy. You explained why it could be perceived as one, but failed to provide any documentation that relates to its context in Eurovision. The Armenia-Azerbaijan video reel was written about there are reactions, while as far as I can see, this Iranian thing is just something you thought of. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No that is now spread among the Iranian diapora. Wait for a reaction from the Iranian media soon. It was just yesterday. It needs time. I am sure something will come in the coming days even though the Iranian authorities are now trying to hide that Arash (Iranian) particpated in such an event like this!--Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, so we wait for a reaction from the Iranian media - then we'll have a reference, and we can add it. Until then it should obviously stay out as it will be unreferenced. So we just have to wait for the media. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Until someone has actually reported something, there is no proof that it was actually a controversy. It can be added once the media has written about it and it is described by someone else rather than a wikipedia editor, as a controversy. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we can just report that it included the monument in Iran in the clip / reel of the republic of Azerbaijan, without calling it a controversy (yet). That was sources and is verifiable as the program is recorded and available. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing notable about it then. We might as well tell what each country had in their video reel. It will not be included unless there is a source that it is either notable or controversial. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

how do you define notability? do not understand mewrng. But it is as notable as Arash is an Iranian. Just think about it. It is an unusual thing. What I say is just it should be mentioned without justify it or condemn it. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Arash being Iranian is not very notable, especially on the main contest page. We did not mention the ethnicities of any of the other entrants and the fact that he was raised in Sweden makes it much more likely that he would want to participate in ESC. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Arash being Iranian is notable. Biographical details are provided about all participants--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link. http://www.may3am.net/1388/02/27/arash-aysel/#more-432 --76.93.86.242 (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC) One more http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=31848 --76.93.86.242 (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC) And another, with info about the censored phone numbers. http://www.mosnews.com/society/2009/05/18/armenianazericontestconflict/ --76.93.86.242 (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There are tons of allegedly "controversial" things about Eurovision published in various places; it doesn't mean every such speculation should be included in this Wikipedia page. Even if someone published something about this somewhere, this is not real controversy. Unlike the Armenia-Azerbaijan controversy, in this situation Azerbaijan has no claims to any Iranian territory and there was no political message in that reel. In the Armenia controversy there was a big political subtext which is shown by the fuss that both sides made about it, plus the Armenian reaction was actually shown live during the voting transmission. As for the Tabriz landmark, it may have just been included to somehow represent Arash's historic homeland, who knows. Nobody cares anyway, Iran is not part of Eurovision and probably does not even approve of this entire event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.126.199.15 (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

your talk just shows your lack of knowledge. Arash's historic homeland? it is Iran. Azerbaijan has no claims over Irsan's territory? |You are wrong. Just check some books published there. You don't care about Iran? good for you, no one cares about what you care for. Next time at least sign your comments. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Like you just said, his homeland is Iran; so they probably used the monument to represent him. It's like you read the comment, but only understood what you wanted. There was no mention of a claim in the ip's response, yet you say in response to it that he should check some books? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph on Maqbaratoshoara from the "Controversies" section. Did someone even check the sources presented here by an anon who has not done anything to Wikipedia but vandalise Azerbaijan-related pages? None of the sources is Iranian or neutral; they are either Armenian or cite the Armenian news agencies. It is understandable that in a situation where there is a controversial issue between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Armenian sources, especially those that do not cite any Iranian sources to back up their claims, cannot be considered acceptable. I suggest we wait further until there is real proof that would allow us to call this a "controversy". Parishan (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Most people in the republic of Azerbaijan do not know any thing about maqbaratoshoara.And these were not only Armenian Media that reported it. They have picked it up. As I said yetsreday Iranians did not accuse republic of Azerbaijan but the Russian organizers of this violation. There were insistence here in wikipedia that it should be controversial etc... As You can see in the Iranian sources, some Iranians say it is Ok that republic of Azerbaijan tries to attach itself to us, some other say it is a vilation of territorial integrity. The problem comes from the fact that the republic of Azerbaijan itself initiated this problem that inclusion of that monument in Karabakh by Armenia is a violation of its territorial integrity. If they apply the same logic, inclusion of an Iranian monument meeans the same thing according to the SAME logic. Moreover another thing is why not Shiraz or Esfahan where Arash's parrents are from? Why not Tehran? Why Tabriz? And you cannot deny that certain circles in the republic of Azerbaijan and their supporters do claim Iranian territory. Especially in theose Iranian sources they have had their say. Unlike sources from the republic of Azerbaijan that keep silent and badmouth everything IOranian, Iranian sources allow republic of Azerbaijanis and their guys i Iran and other anti-Iranians have their say. cheers--Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Why the flags were removed from the scoreboards?

First, it was vandalism because I spent about 2hrs doing the scoreboard for the semifinal and the 12points in the final and they included the flags.. Secondly, what is the problam with using flags alongside the countries? I can't see how it attempts with the Wikipedia policies or rules regarding the use of flags.. I've seen lots of pages with flags and everything, so what's the big deal? It is just something aesthetic. Just to make it look better. I think we can keep it. Tony0106 (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Sims2aholic8 made the scoreboards. They were most likely not removed, but instead the version he had been making on his subpage for days was moved onto the page. Either way, they should not be there because you cannot put them in the top column, throwing off the balance. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Scoreboards cannot have the same weight because they have different number of countries and the flags are the same size of the letters. I made one of the scoreboards. And how does he spent days making the scoreboards? if they were just revealed last night. Give me a break. I just would like to keep the flags. There is no problem with them. It fits in the page and that's what is important. 190.39.88.28 (talk) 06:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm pissed to see that the flags are gone, because it made it much easier to the eye and was pretty as well. It didn't ruin anything. Please bring them back! - Jetro (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the relevant policy is this one: "Icons should not be added for exclusively decorative purposes, because aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. Hence, avoid adding icons that do not provide additional information (for example, adding a country's flag next to its name may not provide extra information about the subject of the article)." (my emphasis). I'm pretty much neutral on the topic - I can see an argument for just having flags, and I can see an argument why just having flags would be a bad idea. I'd also be prepared to turn a blind eye to having both ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not shocked by the fact that there is some Wikipedia guideline on this particular matter. But that guideline cannot apply to each and every case on Wikipedia.
Using flags makes it easier to differentiate between the countries, and there are also flags in the semi- and final tables, so why not in the voting tables? It doesn't make sense. The Eurovision Song Contest uses flags, and it's all about the different countries, so I don't see how there not should be flags.
If the flags were deleted purposefully, the person who did it should at least try to discuss it here first. - Jetro (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There are three reasons why I am against the flags. 1) We have over 50 contest pages without flags and it would be a pain to add them all, 2) the flags make the fields wider and my resolution causes the scoreboards to be all jumbled up, and 3) because the flags are only on one side; they should be on the top as well, which would be hard to do. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Gallery?

Are there not pictures of the contest as there have been for the 2007 & 2008 contests? --TardisShell (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess we are just waiting for someone to upload some free, uncopyrighted images. I think its best when they are on the individual country in year pages though. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of Iran in controversy section

Dear GRK why did you reword that section? The sources and especially exactly the source that you removed regarded it as an republic of Azerbaijan's claims on the Iranian territory. It seems that you try to do everything in order to talk it good and depict it as unimportant. I wonder whsat you had done if it concerned certain other countries. You asked sources and I provided. So please be fair.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not address me in talk section headings. I reworded it to reflect the source. You keep saying that it was like some sort of hostile threat while it was just the subtle inclusion of a picture. If you read it again, I did write that it was seen as promotional for the unification of Azerbaijan and northern territory of Iran. I'm sorry if it can't be worded they exact way you would like it to in an accusatory tone against Azerbaijan. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The sources show that Iranian people regard it as Azerbaijani claims on the Iranian territory. You try to talk it good. Unification is soomething else. Unification means that two countries voluntarily unifte. This is just a countries claim on it's neighbors territory. From you insistence that it is Azerbaian and not Azerbaijan republic it is clear that you are biased against Iran and . I am going to reword it in a way that is consistent with the source, especially the Iranian source. Please do not remove it.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think its a little more noticeable that you are biased against Azerbaijan as you will not rest until Azerbaijan is crucified for this occurrence. It can't be neutral and report what happened, it has to be an outright attack. I suggest you leave your personal feelings out of this. Unification means they will "unite" or come together. The two territories would come together exactly like the source says. No where does it say this is peaceful or right. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Babakexorramdin. In such context, "unification" is a POV-laden word, that legitimizes an irredentist claim on a sovereign nation's territory. --Kurdo777 (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I swapped out the word, but Kurdo reverted this for what reason? I thought you did not want unification. Also if you would like to change it again, do not revert my edit entirely as you are messing up the sourcing which i repaired in my edit. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC):::: ok, but I should remind you that yesterday it was me who insisted that it should be reported as neutral as possible. You insisted that it is not controversial enough or it is not notable enough. You wanted sources and I brought sources (especially he Iranian ones) which showed that many Iranians regard it as Republic of Azerbaijan's disrespect for Iranian territorial integrity. You coulsd see from the records of certain editors from the Republic of Azerbaijan in Wikipedia (English, Russian Turkish Persian and Azeri) that they are very sincere about their claims on the Iranian territory. I am among the editors who are relatvely more benevolent to the republic of Azerbaijans position and I am sorry that such a thing happened. But wikipedia is not politics and this should be said. But your formulation looks largely OK now.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see your comment before I reverted. The current wording is fine, I'll just make a minor change for clarity. --Kurdo777 (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Grk1011 and Babakexorramdin, I made some minor improvements, are you both OK with the current wording? --Kurdo777 (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked it a tad, and I am fine with it now. Azerbaijan is known in English as such, so do not refer to it as the "Republic of" per WP:USEENGLISH. It's ok to note the Iranian Azerbaijan which is rightfully wikilinked for those who are unaware. I also removed that adjective which according to my spell check was not a real work anyway. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

When Arash has said many times about representing also Iran, in an unofficial way, no one in Azerbaijan, Iran, or elsewhere took it as violation of territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Meanwhile, a showing of an image of Tabriz, a city very dear to any Azeri, but no less important, appropriate because of Arash's presence in the duo, since he is from Iran, and has a full moral right to have at least one image of what he considers his homeland, is somehow misrepresented, by mostly Armenian sources, as some kind of "claim". If it were to be a claim, then it would have included images of Ardabil, Urmiya, Hamadan, and other cities, as well as Babak castle and other imagery. But since when is one photo of a place that has everything to do with poetry, and nothing to do with separatism, independence, etc., suddenly a "claim"? Maybe this is why official Iran is not even considering lodging any protests -- because this "claim" is completely made-up by the Armenian media? --Goldorack (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"

However, the inclusion of Tabriz's imagery can be seen as appropriate due to the fact that Azerbaijan's second vocalist, Arash, is originally from Iran and the imagery was used to represent him, and his upbringing.[citation needed]

Sorry this is a very weak argument. Most people in the republic of Azerbaijan do not know any thing about maqbaratoshoara.And these were not only Armenian Media that reported it. They have picked it up. As I said yetsreday Iranians did not accuse republic of Azerbaijan but the Russian organizers of this violation. There were insistence here in wikipedia that it should be controversial etc... As You can see in the Iranian sources, some Iranians say it is Ok that republic of Azerbaijan tries to attach itself to us, some other say it is a vilation of territorial integrity. The problem comes from the fact that the republic of Azerbaijan itself initiated this problem that inclusion of that monument in Karabakh by Armenia is a violation of its territorial integrity. If they apply the same logic, inclusion of an Iranian monument meeans the same thing according to the SAME logic. Moreover another thing is why not Shiraz or Esfahan where Arash's parrents are from? Why not Tehran? Why Tabriz? And you cannot deny that certain circles in the republic of Azerbaijan and their supporters do claim Iranian territory. Especially in theose Iranian sources they have had their say. Unlike sources from the republic of Azerbaijan that keep silent and badmouth everything IOranian, Iranian sources allow republic of Azerbaijanis and their guys i Iran and other anti-Iranians have their say. cheers--Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Iran is seen by many as a country which claims others' territory, whether the target is Azerbaijan, or Bahrain, or other state. There are plenty of reports of such grievances against Iran and its government, so please, don't make it sound as if Iran never did anything far more objectionable first, for which there was a reaction. The recent (but predating Eurovision) claims by the highest-level Iranians towards Azerbaijan, Bahrain, UAE, etc., are far more fitting the case of "violation of territorial integrity" than this innocent case of showing an Azerbaijani cemetery in an Azerbaijani city which happens to be the capital of East Azerbaijan province!

Maqbaratoshoara is located in the historical capital of Azerbaijan, in a capital of a province named East Azerbaijan, and is a place where many famous Azeris, who were essentially musicians or otherwise very close to music, culture (poets) were burried - so displaying that place is logical for its historical value, as well as its cultural/musical/poetic significance. Plus due to Arash's participation (maybe even he selected it to be shown?) and Azerbaijan has not claimed anything from Iran in terms of territories, whether at Eurovision, or in UN, or any other international forum, or otherwise officially. The We Are Our Mountains situation is comletely different, and the same logic cannot apply there -- it is not only smth built in the second half of the 20th century and hence not exactly very historic or ancient, but it's an occupied part of Azerbaijan which is officially occupied and claimed by Armenia, the other Eurovision participant. Hence, it's completely different. It would have been the same, if Azerbaijan were to military occupy Tabriz, or at least claim it officially on any maps or at the level of the highest government official - but it's not, and does not do that, nor does it intend to do it. So there is no 'same' logic, there are plenty of nuances and differences here. Finally, if Iranian media, and government, are proud of the fact that the "first Iranian" or "first Persian" made it to Eurovision, even if under Azerbaijani flag, and representing Azerbaijan, then it's kinda strange to complain - you can't try to take advantage of Azerbaijani membership and success in Eurovision for Iran's sake, and then complain that one Azerbaijani image of one of the Azerbaijani cities in Iran was used, and try to make a case that it's somehow a violation of Iran's territorial integrity. --Goldorack (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well it is no secret that the Republic of Azerbaijan and Bahrain were historically part of Iran . But I invite you to discuss these issues in the corresponding articles, if you think that Iran has offically claimed these areas recently and if you have reliable sources. It is certainly not related to the issue here.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Noteworthy records

Try again to put this section in, with the obvious references. Why not leave it this time and comment here if there are any issues? --Eivindgh (talk) 07:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Try to write it out. One of the biggest problems with this page is that everyone feels the need to add information in the form of a table which I feel is less formal. Write a blurb or something in the section with the final results, which btw, should not be bulleted like it is now. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Split the article?

Why not put the scoreboards on a separate page? Would reduce the size and download time substantially! --Eivindgh (talk) 07:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

50/50 voting combination

Does anyone understand how it works if the number of points is equal? For example, in some country A public puts country B on the first place and country C on the second place. Jury puts country C on the first place, country B on the second. That means that B has 12+10 points; C has 10+12 points - both have 22 points -> who gets 12 and who gets 10 in the final result then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickalex79 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I found an answer. http://esctoday.com/news/read/12655: "•Where countries are tied for points, the one with the higher televote position will be given the advantage and the additional point." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickalex79 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll add that to the article if its not there already. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Splitting votes between televote and jury

Is there a place which merits inclusion of the jury votes which have now been released, rather than just the final aggregated votes from each country? 86.141.218.200 (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

They should be incorporated somehow, but I'm not sure a full separate chart just for it is necessary. I'll try to think of a solution. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems as though some of the jury results are being released seperately for each country[8] [9]. I am not sure whetehr every countries will be. Maybe they should be covered in a table or similar? Aarhon2009 (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Unwillingness of the mayor of Moscow to hold the contest?!

[10]: "I know the Mayor of Moscow is absolutely furious about Eurovision being held there as he doesn't like foreigners at all. Putin is the one who is really keen" - those words belong to Lloyd Webber. Mayor of Moscow or Putin never stated such thing. I doubt that supposition of some Lloyd Webber from UK should be consider as a reliable source for official position of Moscow Mayor. Nazargulov (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything to dispute this claim? We don't have a hearsay rule on wikipedia, we just need a reliable source. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source [11]: Earlier this afternoon, Belgrade Mayor Dragan Dilas handed over the Eurovision Song Contest Host City Insignia to his Moscow colleague, Mayor Yury Luzhkov. "It is with great dignity that I receive these insignia, and that we have the opportunity to welcome the Eurovision Song Contest in Moscow," Luzhkov said.

further: Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov was asked specifically by a journalist about the city's position towards gay visitors who would like to attend the Eurovision Song Contest in Moscow. The Mayor underlined that "people are welcome to Moscow, regardless their sexual orientation."

End of talk? Nazargulov (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering that it's the official website, they're not going to publish something which would damage the office of government in Russia. Furthermore, it's a public announcement on the part of the mayor that all are welcomed. I don't see why ALW would be lying anyway. 81.153.164.229 (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell me that eurovision.tv in not reliable source? If yes, then we shouldn't use it in this article at all. What is ALW? Nazargulov (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"ALW" is Andrew Lloyd Webber, the source of the claim that the mayor wasn't keen on the event being held in Moscow.

I have to admit, it seems like this is slightly irrelevant now, anyway. The event has been held - we have one source saying that the mayor was opposed initially, and another suggesting that the mayor was supportive. Regardless, the event was held in Moscow - can't we just remove this altogether?

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I am agree with you. Moreover, I just can't imagine that our mayor (which I personally dislike) would be against Eurovision in Moscow. It's against any logic. Nazargulov (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Broken Records

"Also, since the introduction of semi-finals and finals, Norway is the only country to receive at least one point from every other country."

Not true. Both Serbia and Montenegro and Greece received points from every voting country in the Eurovision Song Contest 2004. Norway is, however, the only winner to receive points from every other country. [12] [13]

Thewriter2120 (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel like this records section would best be incorporated into the article as part of the results section in the form of prose. It's a much more professional article when its written out as opposed to tables galore. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Am I right in stating this was the longest winning streak ever? As far as I know, Sandra Kim in 1986 is quoted as holding the record, having been top of the leaderboard non-stop from the second country giving points. This year, Norway was top from beginning to end. Anyone to confirm? Lieveco (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Rather any source to confirm. Not only does it need to be right, but someone else has to say it first. It can be annoying, but we as editors are not supposed engage in original research to develop our own information and analysis. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you give an intelligent explanation why anybody with a normally functioning brain would make 54 Eurovision Song Contest pages, and not "be supposed" to interprete the info given in them? Are we supposed to have a brain at all? Lieveco (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I can find one longer than 1986 (not including this year) - in 2000, Denmark got Israel's 12pts and were never knocked off. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Norway using only jury votes

I added a bit on the note that Norway voted last. Source: http://www.kjendis.no/2009/05/22/kjendis/grand_prix/alexander_rybak/nrk/tv_og_medier/6353946/, http://www.dagbladet.no/2009/05/22/kultur/eurovision_song_contest/aleksander_rybak/nrk/telenor/6355368/. (Norwegian). - Jetro (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Rybak's comments on the gay parade

I changed this from a reference to him 'showing his support for the cause' to a more neutral comment. The Norwegian reference cited reports him saying he 'couldn't see the point of a gay parade as the biggest parade was happening on stage' which is far from him giving his support for the banned march. It was reported from Moscow by several bloggers and journalists that Rybak was in fact conspicous in his refusal to wear a badge of support for the gay pride event in question. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ratings?

Offical ratings for as many countries as possible would be appreciated as well as their respected viewing share. We can then formulate some kind of total viewership for the show. --Cooly123 (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Swedish viewers, 3 120 000, though no share is specified.[14] chandler 23:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)