Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2010

Palestine

who got rid of the Palestinian bit?Zu Anto 15:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Palestine has not confirmed its participation. An encyclopedia is not the place to speculate which countries may or may not participate in the contest. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Even though Palestine have not confirmed participation for 2010; they have stated prior to the 2009 contest that they are in the middle of a EUROVISION project; and that as soon as their membership becomes active, that they WILL participate. Palestine's EBU membership has been approved (which is also shown on the EBU's website). Their membership becomes active after the 2009 contest. Therefore Palestine's participation at the 2010 contest is highly likely. This information can also be backed-up with details on the WIKIPEDIA thread about the EBU [1] and also the thread on Palestine In The Eurovision [2]. SO I feel that the information about Palestine being a possible debut should be returned to the 2010 thread. (Pr3st0n (talk) 01:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

Per wikipedia rules, unless it is 100% that Palestine will participate, then it will not be added. Someone made the Palestine page, which will soon be nominated for deletion along with all of the other countries which have never participated ever. You can't have a page that says that they want to, but can't or have not yet. That is not how wikipedia works. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from Stephen regards to this matter. However, Palestine HAVE said that they will participate in the Eurovision that follows their active membership approval. That membership has since been approved, and their membership changes from associate to ACTIVE once the 2009 contest has been completed. So therefore, 2010 will see the debut of Palestine, based on all that information, which HAS come from reliable sources on the internet, including the Palestinian broadcasters (PRTV), and the EBU themselves. Further more; delegates from Qatar and Palestine are at the contest in Moscow 2009, and have been included in meetings with the EBU executives. This further adds to the likelihood of them participating in 2010. You state the thread on "Palestine in the Eurovision" is being deleted. Yet, the thread on Qatar can still remain, and that information on Qatar is strongly backed-up with liable sources, just like the Palestinian one. (Pr3st0n (talk) 01:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

I didn't start the deletion process yet because I was at work, but I will now I suppose. Year after year we have to get rid of these "country can participate, but doesnt", "country wants to participate, but can't" and "country is planning on participating once all these random hurdles are crossed". It's just not encyclopedic to speculate on who may or may not participate. Unless Palestine or any of the other country says it is participating (not wants to, or is thinking about it) then they cannot be included on the page. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

In the article, reference 3, (At a press conference on 13 May 2009, the EBU confirmed that countries like Kazakhstan, Palestine and Qatar are not eligible to join in the future along with any country geographically located outside of the European Broadcasting Area. It was also said that there are no new potential active countries as all that are eligible are already in, but there may be new broadcasters in European countries that already have at least one member.), may need to be reviewed, as the source is from ESCKaz. My reason being for this is following something which you brought to my attention User:Grk1011 back in October 2008 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Reliability of ESCKaz. (Pr3st0n (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

That discussion ended with consensus that ESCKaz is reliable, however, its format for publishing makes it hard to reference in articles. We decided to use if we need to, but replace with another source when it becomes available. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If that be the case, then why wasn't I informed about this consensus? Afterall I am an active member of the WikiEurovision Project. Would be nice to keep it's members, whether they be active or inactive, informed of all changes - AT ALL TIMES. (Pr3st0n (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

There were notices sent out to all members listed as active of the project regarding the discussion while it was going on. In fact it is still on your talk page. Mass posting of messages on talk pages can be found annoying by many editors, I was not willing to send out more than one notice regarding it. It is assumed that editors are interested in what the outcome of a debate will be, they will watchlist the page. If the outcome is disputed, then it can always be reviewed at a later debate. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The initial article was sent to me indeed - but the conclusion was not. I'll admit I wasn't aware of this "Watchlist" though, which would have helped out. I also noticed that I was removed from Active to Inactive; despite the fact that I was constantly providing reliable information for the 2009 edition. Any explanation as to why this happened? I appreciate feedback on this query. (Pr3st0n (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

I moved you from active to inactive last month when I did my routine checking of member edits. When a user has not made a significant amount of edits to a Eurovision article in the past two months I remove them from the active list. This is so that other members can go to the list and contact an active member if they need one. Contacting people who make 5 or so edits a month (not saying you) would be a waste of time because they obviously do not edit enough to respond quickly and help. There is a note at the top that says if you find yourself on the inactive list to simply move yourself back to active if you think you are so. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the exact reason was because you were last regularly editing in September 2008 and as of the beginning of May, had only made two edits in 2009, both of which occurred in January on the same day. I felt that after not making a single edit for 4 months, you might be classified as inactive. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I was regularly editing in September 2008; and continue to do so, even to this present day. Between October 2008 - January 2009; I was having difficulty gaining log-in access to my Wiki account, which resulted me into signing any alterations using my IP address. The log-in access got resolved on January 24th, 2009, and since then I've been re0using my Wiki user name. I have now placed myself back in the "active" section. Thanks for answering my questions on this Stephen. P.S. Do you still use your MSN account? Mine has since changed, you can access the new data via my User page. (Pr3st0n (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

I can't relate random ip addresses to you so that is why it would seem as if you were inactive. I blocked you on msn after getting daily spam messages lol. I assume that's why you have a new one. I'm the same depending on which one you had in the first place. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Italy

Be serious, Italy won't come back! I'm not a magician, but an Italian that knows very well how Italy treats ESC!--87.6.182.170 (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is being serious. The article just says that the EBU will try. It doesn't say anywhere how likely or unlikely the return is. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I repeat: I am Italian, and I promise that if Italy won't com back (sure 100%), i will write "Italy retired"--87.6.179.238 (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The article does not say that Italy will return, just that the EBU will try to make it. Nothing wrong with that. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Grk1011. You don't know how your country will act and you cannot speak on behalf of it. If there is a source(from the broadcaster) specifically confirming participation or non participation, only then can it be added. At the moment, there's nothing wrong with quoting the EBU's intentions. Welshleprechaun (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed participants

Why only confirmed participants??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.174.155 (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Because others aren't definite. This isn't a forum to speculate on who may or may not participate. It is an encyclopedia that shows facts. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Grk1011 i admire your enthusiasm for the Eurovision subject. But sometimes your own personal could become to strong, and you forget that there is hundreds or thousands of other people that also wants to voice their opinions about a certain layout of an article etc etc etc.. But maybe doesnt get the time because you haste into a decision to delete material or similar. Just wanted you to know. cheers.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I am the only person who responded here, but there is much support of the project talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision, which ultimately led to this page's protection. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasnt questioning that decision. I was only questioning your very "over the top" strong opinions an views in some areas concerning Eurovision. cheers.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Grk1011 is right. This is an encyclopaedia, a place of fact - not opinion, speculation, guessing or hope. Welshleprechaun (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Also supporting Grk1011. WP:CRYSTAL includes the sentence: "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." At this stage preparation hasn't yet begun - the venue has at best only just been announced - and speculation is not well documented. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, I added the UK as the BBC stated via Twitter that they "don't think there's any question whatosever about the UK participating in 2010 - course we are!" Martin Leng (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yey! I was the one who asked them that. I'm glad I could help. Chrisethebest (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Message

Might as well remove the deletion message seeing as this is an up and coming event and will no doubt be resusrrected soon anyway. I will do this now. EDIT: lol, can't do this, but still I stand by my point - that deletion message is USELESS. ²wenty³  • MESSAGE ME • MY CONTRIBUTIONS • BIGGEST NEWS • RECENT CHANGES 22:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

How so? The message advised people that the article is being considered for deletion and invites them to participate in the deletion discussion. If you delete the message people won't know, and it could be deleted without them having a chance to participcate. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

But the discussion is over and the result was keep. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

At the time I posted the above message the AfD was still open; it was speedily closed by a non-admin with an invitation to revert and request admin review, which I have done. The AfD is still open. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Bergen ? Oslo ?

Has the location been announced ? Hektor (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No, they've only just won it! It may not be for some months so please don't try to guess or add a location without a reptuable source. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No. There are several cities that wants to host the contest, and Trond Giske, Ministre of Culture has stated that he expects that an announcement will be made before summer. TrondM (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

ESC Today is claiming the Telenor Arena in Oslo is the venue, and considering its newness and its large capacity it seems likely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.178.70 (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

ESC Today are using the headline "Telenor Arena to host Eurovision 2010?", the question mark is a big clue in that it is still a question whether it will. At the end of the article it also states; 'The decision about where to host the 2010 Eurovision Song Contest will be made by the new host broadcaster, NRK in Norway in the near future'. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 11:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

A not binding poll at NRK.no is listing three locations; Telenor Arena in Fornebu, Oslo Spektrum in Oslo and Vikingskipet in Hamar. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 12:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have found a few sources that say the next contest will be held in Oslo. But I don't know if they are reliable or not. LG 20:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC).

http://goscandinavia.about.com/od/historyart/p/eurovision2010.htm

http://www.trksh.com/

I would not trust them, Eurovision has many fan sites, but Norway does not have that many famed cities. I would wait for a source from either NRK.no or Eurovision.tv, Moscow was announced in July so shouldn't be long. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 19:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oikotimes.com have a couple of articles which imply that Oslo is infact the new host city for 2010. In one of the articles they state that Oikotimes.com have spoken to executives for Norwegian broadcaster NRK. I'm still uncertain whether to believe these sources. However, they do show strong reliable information in regards to Oslo being the host city for 2010.
Article 1: Goodnight Moscow, Good morning Oslo http://www.oikotimes.com/v2/index.php?file=articles&id=5810
Article 2: Oslo to host 2010 edition in Telenor Arena http://www.oikotimes.com/v2/index.php?file=articles&id=5818 (Pr3st0n (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

There is always speculation. It will be added to the article when it is certain. It's such a small thing to put so much time and effort into. We will add the information when it becomes available. We don't need to predict and assume anything. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Grk1011. All of this is pure speculation, simply based on Oslo being the capital of Norway. To be honest, I'm pretty sure it'll end up in Oslo, too, but at this moment, no decisions has been made. I'm also very confident that NRK will announce it very clearly when they do make their decision, so there shouldn't be any need to actively hunt for articles mentioning it. TrondM (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the website "The Norway Post" which is an online version of their newspaper; it has been announced by NRK that the 2010 contest WILL be held in Oslo. Read this article for CONFIRMATION. [3] (Pr3st0n (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

Norway Post does not decide where ESC will be held. Oslo is obviously the most likely venue - but no official decision has been made yet. TrondM (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from on this TrondM, but the Norway Post held an interview with NRK, and it was they (NRK) who confirmed to the Norway Post that Oslo is the host. (Pr3st0n (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)). There is a line in that article in The Norway Post which reads "The Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) will host next year's ESC competition final in Oslo. This will be the third time Norway hosts an ESC final." so are we to believe that this is inaccurate information and unreliable source of it? (Pr3st0n (talk) 08:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

Of course you are. First of all, the article does not mention an interview at all. Second, if there was an interview, who did they interview? They can't interview the entire organisation, so who did they speak to? The CEO? A receptionist? Who? Third, if NRK already made their decision, why would Svante Stockselius even bother coming to NRK next week to discuss the possible venues? TrondM (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You got a good point there. Anyway, I took upon myself to email the editors of The Norway Post, to find out who within the NRK they spoke, to have obtained tis information, as it could be deemed as misleading to readers. I await their reply, and will post it on my talk page. (Pr3st0n (talk) 09:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

I have been reading articles on NRK.no website; and they want to change the dates of the ESC as they clash with 2 events already planned to take place during the same week. 17 May 2010 is Norway's National Day; and the weekend of the ESC 2010 Final; Norway is also hosting a football final. The dates in the article here on Wiki seem to show 18, 20, and 22 May as definite dates. Would it be OK for me to re-word this section of the article? (Pr3st0n (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

The actual big reason is that the 2010 UEFA Champions League Final will also be held on 22 May (first to played on Saturday rather than Wednesday). -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 01:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

[4] yea, its about moving because of the Champions League final. chandler ··· 01:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Spain

Spain has not confirmed it his participation in the Eurovision 2010 because this year a boycott has taken place(been produced) to españa in the festival

The article does not say that it has confirmed its participation, so what is the problem. If you would like to add to the article that there is a boycott, then please provide a reliable source to back it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous stories flying around several Eurovision sites on the Internet, stating that Spain is pulling out of the contest all together, in a similar manner of that which Italy did a few years ago. One report states that TVE viewing figures are poor, and Spain's poor results over the years are also a contributing factor to their reasons for pulling out of Eurovision for an indefinite period. I'll keep a close eye on this, and delve deeper into this scoop, and provide more accurate details once I find them. (Pr3st0n (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

Spain sí se va ha retirar, lo digo yo que soy spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.218.213 (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Who added Spain in the WITHDRAWAL section already? I was shocked to see this added so soon, despite what I mentioned above. I've spoken to my reliable source within the EBU, and he has confirmed that the EBU are investigating Spanish broadcaster TVE, for its delayed broadcasts of ESC2009; but this information is still at investigation level between the EBU and TVE. An official statement/decision hasn't even been agreed yet. The EBU are giving TVE 2 options, either pay a very hefty fine, or face being banned from ESC for 5 years. TVE have yet to make a decision, and the saga still continues between EBU and TVE. I think Spain should be removed from the withdrawals, until an official statement has been published either by the EBU or TVE. (Pr3st0n (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

Small Grammatical Error

The European Broadcasting Union (EBU) has announced that it will work harder to bringing back...

Should that not be bring? (I can't edit the page to correct) Crayzeepete (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Could be either 'bring' or some one forgot to add 'in', fixed now, thanks. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 19:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted line about automatic qualifiers

The line about Azerbaijan and Iceland having already qualified for the 2010 contest was nonsense. It is common knowledge that only the host country and "Big 4" (France, Germany, Spain, UK) do not have to qualify through the semi finals for a place in the final. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

When I reworded it, I took out the part that it was said in a press conference. I suppose we should wait for an actual source first. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore Vauxhall to your "Big 4" things; I would like to add that if (and that's a BIG IF), Italy return to the contest in 2010; that THEY will also auto-qualify to the finals, as part of the Big 5 (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) (Pr3st0n (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

Based on what evidence? The EBU has never said that Italy would be part of a Big 5. This is just speculation. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Italy have always been the 5th financial provider to the EBU. It's always been known for as long as I've been into Eurovision (which is a little over 2 decades now) that Italy, along with France, Germany, Spain, and the UK make up the traditional "Big-5". Even if you look on the Eurovision,tv history, it shows in there about Italy being part of the Big 5. (Pr3st0n (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)).

Italy may be the 5th biggest contributor to the EBU. That doesn't mean there will be a 'Big 5' in the (unlikely) event Italy returns to the contest. Show me any official EBU source saying that Italy will auto-qualify for the final if they were to come back. There has never been such an EBU statement. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Vauxhall, Considering the fact my cousin works for the EBU, and he will have access to that information - then I think he would be certain about the fact ITALY is part of the BIG-5. It was also said in 2008, when San Marino made its debut to the contest, by Mr Stockselius, that if Italy wished to return to the contest at any stage, they would be part of the "Big 5" and qualify automatically for the final. But if it's sources you want to back this up with, then here are the sources.. And despite those 3 links, there are also numerous others, if you care to search on Google for them. (Pr3st0n (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC))

Infobox: Number of Countries

hye, can I put in the infobox, the number of countries that have alredy confirmed their participation, for exemple: 9 (until now)? João P. M. Lima (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's best if you don't. It will just turn into another thing that we will have to constantly update and watch for vandalism. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

ok, but i make this in PT Wiki since last year contest (from the begining) and i've never had any problem with this, but in English wiki are more people interest (and more vandalism) in this subject. thanks for the explantion bye João P. M. Lima (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

French Version of Wiki ESC 2010 Page

I just wanted to comment about the way our French counterparts produce their version of this ESC2010 page link. I'm very impressed with their layout and detailed information, covering all aspects of the forthcoming contest. Something similar to this would be ideal for our English version. Does anyone agree? (Pr3st0n (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

That would not fly here. Different wikis have different guidelines. I can tell you from experience that anything about possible or likely entries like that will not work here. An encyclopedia cannot speculate on who may or may not be participating, we can only say who is. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

NEW SECTION: Possible Début and Returning Participants

I've added a new section on "Possible Début and Returning Participants"; with the following context: Every year in the run up to the Eurovision Song Contest, speculations and rumours into Possible Début and Returning countries start to fly around many Eurovision Fansites across the Internet; some of which even find their way onto Wikipedia. These rumours and speculations must be discredited until official confirmation from each individual country is received. This is in the hope that random IPs from people who are not part of the WikiProject Eurovision will take note and prevent them from adding false information on possible countries EVER AGAIN! It's just a thoughtful idea which might work - worth while to test it out and see if it does!!! (Pr3st0n (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

I'm not convinced it's a good idea - it's basically instructions to editors, rather than text for readers. Maybe have it as an HTML comment instead?

I do appreciate the motivation, however - anything to stop dodgy information being added has to be applauded - however I've already removed countries that were "sourced" - a reference stating that Greece wouldn't participate in Junior Eurovision was used to support the idea that Turkey was participating! You have to admire the imagination of some editors ;-)

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm not sure; it could be seen both ways as "Editors Instruction", but it also provides information about "rumours" which we must admit, do happen year after year. We should at least test the theory out and see if it does work. (Pr3st0n (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

I also noticed the TURKEY thing, and every time I tried to remove it, it re-appeared within minutes. Got very frustrating I must say! (Pr3st0n (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

If that's the case, it should be cited. I'll see if I can dig a few up. I am still unhappy with this line: "These rumours and speculations must be discredited until official confirmation from each individual country is received." which does read precisely like an instruction to editors.

I warned an IP that added Turkey; haven't heard anything since so hopefully that's knocked it on the head!

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That new paragraph needs to be sourced and I find it a little weird to mention wikipedia itself in the article. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Why did it need to be sourced? The sourcing for that paragraph was on the very same page. I just forgotten to add the REF LINKS. At the time of writing it, I was also running late for work, and did a rapid-write, and was planning on tidying it up on my return home. My idea for writing it though was to help out with this constant random adding of possible debuts etc, from random people, and hope they would pay attention to it, and stop adding without sourcing this information first. Obviously my help was wrong once again. The only person to have praised me throughout is This flag once was red and I'm thankful to this person. Everyone else seems to cyber-slap me down. Why is this so? I get valid information via my cousin who works for the EBU in Switzerland, who I might add, doesn't need to give me this info, but does so out of the generosity of his own heart. Naturally the information needs to be sourced when its being added on here. But when things are being fed back to me before they get sent out to the press, then I feel I'm helping you lot out by sharing this information with you, and other readers. (Pr3st0n (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

It's nice that you have inside information and you can tell us editors, but it's not appropriate for the article unless it is sourced. It felt weird reading that paragraph which basically said don't edit wiki and add such and such. We need to think about the fact that wiki pages are mirrored in many places, so actually mentioning wiki and saying what you did in the section does not work for the other mediums. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty then. You're very welcome btw with the fact I'm sharing "inside" information with you. I suppose in future I will add this type of info via my own (talk). To be honest Stephen, at times it does feel like I'm being personally attacked via cyber space for the fact that I have an opinion and given the impression that I'm not allowed to express that on here. Some of the things which have been said to me on here do have a very harsh tone in them. Perhaps people in general should be a little bit more sensitive towards others, and use tact and be civil when replying. Just Remember Folks: WP:CIVIL (Pr3st0n (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

Paragraph about Kazakhstan; Palestine; Qatar.

This paragraph should be removed really; when you read the reference link attached to it <re>http://www.esckaz.com/new/en/blog/ebu-and-eurovisiontv-press-conference</ref>, it referrers to Kazakhstan not being eligible to participate in the 2009 contest. The article from ESCKaz was written prior to the 2009 contest; and quotes "Kazakhstan will broadcast the contest this year" meaning 2009. It also continues on with "but is not eligible to join in future" which confirms that Kazakhstan is therefore not permitted to participate in ANY ESC contest. Then it continues on with "Same goes for any countries geographically located out of the zone". As Qatar and Palestine are IN the EBU zone, this does not prove that those two nations have been rejected to take part in any future contest, including 2010. Information is suppose to be reliable and true with facts. However, this link being used in connection to the on-going "Qatar/Palestine" debate is not showing true facts; on the contrary it is only backing up the fact that Kazakhstan is not permitted to be in the contest, along with nations who are out of the EBU Zone. (Pr3st0n (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

It just needs to be rewritten, the out of the zone comment is still relevant. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Why Kazakhstan is forbidden to participate in Eurovision,i.e. to be an EBU member?As far as iknow 5% of the territory of this country lies on European continent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.173.237 (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

EBU membership is limited to those countries defined as being in the European Broadcasting Area. The EBA was defined some time ago, and seems to be based on networks of telegraph cables! It refers to the USSR, for example. That doesn't really answer your question, but might help you if you can find more up-to-date definitions for the EBA? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. If the southeastern corner of the EBA is at 30°N 40°E, that means that not only is Qatar outside the zone, but so is Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. Has the European Broadcasting Area been updated, or did EBU make exceptions for these three countries? TrondM (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that's interesting - Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia are out of the zone, yet are permitted to participate. Looks like the EBU bend the zone to suit themselves!!! (Pr3st0n (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

Heh! I suspect the EBA has been updated - the version at European Broadcasting Area mentions the USSR. I'd guess that it's been updated to explicitly include countries that once formed the Western part of the USSR. Though I do like the idea of the EBU meeting in secret, smoke-filled rooms to carve up Europe, North Africa and Western Asia...! "One day the whole world will sing a song for Europe! Mwa-ha-ha-ha!" Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Dayum you beat me to it This flag once was red, I was just about to mention that too hahaha. It does also say that the area includes Iraq, Jordan and Northern Saudi Arabia (which ironically Qatar is also in that area). Perhaps that's why the EBU have allowed Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and also considering Qatar, to participate. (Pr3st0n (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC))