Talk:Voting at the Eurovision Song Contest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Eurovision (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Eurovision, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Eurovision-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


This article needs to be completely re-written. Following my successful re-write of the main Eurovision article, these sub-articles need the same treatment. Does anyone else want to lend a hand, or is up to me? EuroSong talk 15:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Big portions of this page were litterally copied from my site | Eurovision Nation without approval.

Ben, Netherlands (25 January 2007)

Voting blocs[edit]

I don't think there is a "West Europe Block", as mentioned in the article.-- 15:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There most certainly not in the case of the UK. We have never had regular voting partners for the last decade or so. Only since Malta's admission to the Eurovision do we have some semblenece of a partner. Harry Hayfield 20:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ireland, maybe -- (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ireland definitely. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no bloc voting between Austria, Germany and Switzerland. Austria and Germany gave each other more often nil points than any point. (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


Is the "bloc vote" map actually based on anything? I assume not. It shows Czech Republic and Slovakia being in the same two-country bloc even though the two have never participated together. Syria and Lebanon are coloured even though they have never participated. It seems nonsense and original research. I'm going to remove it now. (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


It should be noted, however, that the phrase nul points (nor, for that matter, any other referring to a country not having got points from other country's voters) is never actually read out during the presentation of the Contest. This sentence doesn't mean anything in French.

Is this correct? I thought the phrase was read out. They used to announce, for each country, the number of points awarded to each other country (which is part of the reason the show went on for about twelve hours). If it was no points, they would say "no points" in English and then "nul points" in French. I think.

And "This sentence doesn't mean anything in French"? Well, it's not a "sentence" for a start, and isn't meant to be. But besides that, is "nul points" not French for "no points"?

I think we should be told! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  • OK, update... It says here that "nul points" is Franglais, not proper French. But it says here, as an example of what is (or was) actually spoken, "The voting was unanimous: 'Norway - no points - nul points - keine Pünkte'." So if they did say "nul points" then why were they speaking Franglais? And if they didn't say "nul points" then what did they say? BTW, Wikitionary says it's "French, literally ‘nil points’", which is not really consistent with it "not meaning anything in French".
I remember it as "nil point," but the "s" on " nul points" in not correct in this context. Null is a very odd choice, as I don't believe anyone French or English would use the word "Null" in this fashion - ""nil point" is okay in a sports score way, and "zéro point" or maybe "pas de points" would be more common in conversational french. The two most common hosts (the BBC and particularly France Télévisions) would not normally get something so basic wrong. So yes, "nul points" is a sort of Frenglish but the correct phrase isn't. I don't believe it was ever announced by the judges of individual countries, but they used to read out the results table intermittently. If I were to guess, I'd presume it was during the intervals (for ad breaks) where they now cut to overenthusiastic presenters interviewing participants or shouting over the crowd outside. RayBarker (talk) 06:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
'Nul point' would also be correct but very dated french and /could/ be used as more legible in international context over bad telephone lines than the current 'aucun point'. The full sentence would be : 'Nul point n'a été attribué à XXX.' (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
At no time during the voting has there ever been a mention of "no points", "nil points" or "null points" - the votes read out are the scores given from 1 to 12. If a country gets nothing, it's not mentioned at all. I can't believe you added the 'dubious' tag without first being better informed on the subject. I'll remove it anyway.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I've always said nil points... I've even created an article Nil Points because I could not find it anywhere. Try these: Eurovision Song Contest Countries Scoring Nil Points Page Both Paddy Power and The Mirror agree. As does The Scotsman. Jubilee♫clipman 06:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The Guardian says nil point, no s... Perhaps all including null point[s] and nul point are correct, since the term is not officially used? Jubilee♫clipman 06:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough to create an article since it's popularly known as part of the Eurovision now and people might search for it, but shouldn't you have a redirect of 'null points' as well? You could do with some links on there as well. But what's this about?:The term is now used colloquially either as an abuse or in jest. It's still possible to get no points - and it was probably always used as an insult, rather than just saying 'they got no points'. Otherwise the article is worthy enough.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a little strange that "nil" was chosen even though there is a section on Eurovision Song Contest titled "nul points" that explains what it is. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think Null/Nul is more common nowadays (although I don't think it was years ago), but anyway, I do think it's worthy of it's own article but needs a little clean up (and redirect). I'd do it, but not right now. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Voting blocks map[edit]

How come Portugal isn't coloured in yellow like Spain and Andorra? Can someone fix it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) May 29, 2008

We can't/won't "fix" it because the map correctly reflects the source. (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The map shown does not coincide with the countries mentioned in the article Bulgaria and Hungary are referenced in the article as belonging to a Balkans block but they are grey while Greece and Romania are coloured, likewise the Soviet bloc has Poland in red but Belarus and Moldova as grey. I don't know whether the words need to be amended to reflect the map or the map amended to reflect the text.
What bearing does Molecular Genetics have on the analysis of voting patterns? Just asking since Derek Gatherer, who wrote "Comparison of Eurovision Song Contest Simulation with Actual Results Reveals Shifting Patterns of Collusive Voting Alliances", linked in the footnote, is a Lecturer in Molecular Genetics, not in Human Voting Systems. Merely being a "Scientist" does not count. Therefore, his credentials and his ability to present this work in a fully scientific manner should be questioned. Hence the funny map should be questioned, too. I don't disagree with the proposal that countries vote in blocks, mind you. I just think we need a better source study to base the section on. Jubilee♫clipman 07:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


I assessed the page as Start because there seems to be some missing content and there is a lack of sources. Grk1011 (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Regional block voting - pairs of countries[edit]

Due to the fact that Azerbaijan just participated once, there is no basis for a regular voting pattern. I'll delete this part.--Kito (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Diaspora voting[edit]

Just like to mention a small detail regarding voting blocks and diaspora voting. Nations with a similar culture sometimes have a lot of migration within their culture. For instance the majority of the imigrants in Norway are sweds and danes. And I'm assuming something similar is the case in those two countries. The large number of Swedes in Norway could perhaps be part of the reason why Norway tends to vote for Sweden in the Eurovision. I can't back up that this is the reason for anything, but I can back up that Sweds are a large portion of our population if anyone thinks it's worth adding a line about it. Althou it's probably just a curiosity that should be deleted... Luredreier 01:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps not diaspora voting, rather migrant worker voting.. Luredreier 01:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of nul points[edit]

I've just changed it to reflect the actual French pronunciation. But I've just realised that is perhaps not the point. At any rate I think what was there was wrong anyway (/nʊl pwʌ/), at least in the second half. I pronounce it as /nʊl pwɛ̃/ when I'm talking in English, but then I do speak French. But I'm sure everyone pronounces it nasalised, and not as /ʌ̃/ (as in Portuguese planta, frexemple). What do we think? (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not French, "nul points" is meaningless in French. If you said it in France, they would think you were Inspector Crabtree from Allo Allo if you were lucky, or just an idiot more likely. "Pas de point" (no points) or "Zéro point" (nought points) are correct however. (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC) (Half French and lived in France).

Malta with UK & Ireland block?[edit]

I just thought I'd say that Malta often gives points to the UK and Ireland and they return the favour to Malta, I know that Malta's not a neighbour to these countries but even in the UK we think it's due to war efforts do you think it should be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


The sentence "Ten jury members per country had ten points", or some variation of it, is used repeatedly in this table. This could mean either ten jury members had ten points each or ten jury members had one point each (ten points between them). As far as I am aware, it means one point each in all cases, but I do not have actual knowledge, so I would prefer if somebody who knows would fix the ambiguity. Scolaire (talk) 09:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)