Talk:Eurovision Song Contest

The map is still wrong

Germany is still shown as having won only once. The Germany in Eurovision article has it correctly but this main page has been showing the wrong information for a year at least. I don't have the skills to alter the map but it really does need fixing. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 09:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@Vauxhall1964: this debate gets thrashed out periodically as can be found in the number of threads at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest/Archive 1 and Talk:Eurovision Song Contest/Archive 2, and also at File talk:Eurovision winners map.svg - some of which you have also participated in. The map is highlighting the fact that there use to be a divided East-West Germany up until its reunification in the early 1990s. There is a footnote on the map which directs people to the notes section, and provides an explanation into why it is done this way. If we change the colour for both, then people will think Germany have won 4 times, twice as a divided Germany, and twice as a reunified Germany. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 10:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

the Federal Republic of Germany still won both times (and still exists today) - and the German Democratic Republic did never enter the ESC at all - the way it is presented is misleading 149.172.99.168 (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

not only did the German Democratic Republic never enter the ESC it was never a member of the EBU 16:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.172.99.168 (talk)

We know Germany won twice. But in 1982 there was a massive wall dividing the nation. The Federal Republic of Germany was on the western side of that wall, and the map has to show that historical factor. If we show the nation of Germany as being a reunified nation in 1982, then we would be portraying a factual lie. We couldn't highlight both as twice, as that would make people think "West Germany" won twice and the reunified Germany also winning twice. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 19:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

If we're honest this debate gets 'thrashed out periodically' only because, as the threads highlighted show, you and only you argue with everyone else that the map is correct. As for a "factual lie", it's the map which is showing a lie, ie that Germany has only won once (when you yourself just said it won twice). Inclusion of the map is meant to illustrate clearly the facts and the fact is, as we all agree, Germany won twice. I very much admire the work you've put into this article but imagine a journalist having a quick glance at the map and writing an article claiming one win for Germany. We'd all tut tut at their sloppiness, so the map really should be accurate as it's a very instant representation of the facts (the footnote will not be read and is in any case very confusing, talking of 'Germany' and 'Germany as a whole' as if they're two countries). You seem hung up on the map (which is of the territories of Europe as they are now) having to cover the legal territory of Europe as it was four decades ago, which of course it cannot. You also don't seem to understand the legal reality of what 'Germany' is (and has been since the war). As many others in those threads keep pointing out a country called "West Germany" never existed; it was never in the EBU and never entered Eurovision. It's a term used in English-speaking countries and not used in Germany itself (they have always talked about the 'Bundesrepublik'..'federal republic', both then and now). The proper name for the country is the Federal Republic of Germany and it joined Eurovison in 1956 and remains in it to this day, with 'Germany' always on the scoreboard (never 'West Germany'). Its capital changed and its borders changed (in 1957 when Saarland joined it and in 1990 when the eastern regions did the same) but as everyone keeps repeating it's the same country. Or when asked how many times Germany has entered Eurovison do you actually say "35 as West Germnay and 25 as 'Germany'"? The Olympic medals won by the Federal Republic before 1990 aren't separated out from its post reunification tally (and why should they?) so why do that with its Eurovision performances? This defies all common sense. I assume the one win that the map is showing is the win in 2010? Nicole would be very unimpressed to see her win airbrushed off the map. The Germans must find this rather silly as they are in no doubt about what 'Germany' is. After all the German version of this Wikipedia article has a map and guess what? It shows Germany with two wins. So are you going to tell them their map is a 'factual lie' too? Vauxhall1964 (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you will find that all the "periodical thrashing about" took place between 2006 and 2010. I only joined Wikipedia on 13 August 2011, well after these debates took place. So it would be appreciated if you retracted the accusation that I have taken part in every single debate that took place. I only commented briefly once to a thread that was started in 2010, but my comment was made 4 years later.

In 1982 when Germany won, the nation was divided politically. Even the maps of 1982 shown an East and West Germany. Although the EBU did not refer to the FR Germany as "West Germany", their atlas status of such nation in that era needs to be depicted correctly - which is what we have done. If we show a reunified Germany being in existence in 1982, then we would be portraying a factual inaccuracy and that would be more offensive to Germans who endured the political divide of that era. Now if we're to use a unified Germany for 1982, then we're basically changing history - and we do not have the right to change history in that manner. Something like this will require community-wide consensus at the correct venue (not sure if ArbCOm or something similar is the place to be heading). And only then would we have something strict to be abiding too. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 11:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, the period of debate only occurred after Germany's second win in 2010; before then the country had indeed only won once so a map showing that would have been correct. Secondly I don't need to retract any 'accusation' because I never made any: I stated a fact, ie that you are the only person who has been defending the map. Since 2010 24 people have posted saying the map is wrong and 2, including yourself, have defended it (neither German and one of which later changed their mind and agreed with the majority). There's certainly no need for any arbitration as the community-wide consensus could not clearer: 24 to 1. Currently this article across its German and English versions has 2 maps and they both obviously cannot be correct. So I presume you wish to change the map on the German version of this article? It is rather naughty to claim to be sensitive to the feelings of Germans on this when it's patently obvious from their article what their feelings are: anyone trying to change their map to show one win would certainly soon discover what "would be more offensive to Germans". The EBU repeatedly say 'Germany' won twice. A map that says it won once is simply wrong and that is "changing history" as you call it. http://www.eurovision.tv/page/history/by-country/country?country=9

Finally you ignored my point about the map being of Europe today but you wanting it to reflect the territorial realities of pre-1990. That is the root of all this. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Vauxhall1964: When you have quite finished being so distasteful, disrespectful, and slanderous to my name - perhaps you might like to check what is written here before attacking myself with such disgusting comments.

The footnote wording for the map probably needs to be corrected. But the map itself cannot. When Germany won in 1982, despite the fact it was the FR Germany - the exact location of that territory was on the West (pre-reunification) or colloquially known as West Germany. We have shown that in the map's indent. When Germany won in 2010, it was a reunified Germany on the map of Europe - again that is shown. The map itself shows the historical factor that Germany was divided pre-1990, and also shows Germany as unified post-fall of the Berlin wall. Maybe the footnote should read "Germany has won the contest twice, in 1982 and 2010. However, their win in 1982 was during the time of East/West Germany, whilst the win in 2010 was post-reunification" (and we would be able to link to the article for those who did not know about the Berlin Wall. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 16:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Vauxhall posted an official source that directly contradicts you, let it rest.-79.223.19.149 (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Between 1956 and 1990, the Federal Republic of Germany looked like this

From October 1990 to present day, the Federal Republic of Germany looks like this

Please read Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest in which it states in the lead section Before German reunification in 1990, it occasionally presented as West Germany, representing the Federal Republic of Germany. East Germany (the German Democratic Republic) did not compete. Germany has won two contests, in 1982 and 2010. The map itself shows both of Germany's wins. However, it also makes note of the fact that the win in 1982 was Before German reunification in 1990, whilst the win in 2010 was after the German reunification in 1990. If we grey out "West Germany" in the indented map, then we would be saying that their win in 1982 was part of a reunified Germany - and that would be portraying a fallacy. Look at it another way, let's say that in 1987 the Soviet Union had been successful in their participation. Would we then have to say that although the nations of Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, Russia, and Azerbaijan won once, they were part of the Soviet Union thus giving the former nations a total of 5 wins? No we wouldn't. So we cannot show a map portraying that in 1982 a reunified Germany had won, because we would be saying that the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) also participated with their Western counterpart. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 17:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Your imaginary cases are not relevant - Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan do not claim to be, and are not legally recognized as successors of the Soviet Union.

Let me point out another weak spot in your argument. You write above: "Federal Republic of Germany looked like this" - Exactly, and while it did change shape, it is still the Federal Republic of Germany, the country that won two ESCs. You yourself can't even address that entity that purportedly won the first one.-79.223.19.149 (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Also the Eurovision website picks up on the point that in 1982 it was West Germany. Over 13 million West Germans watched Nicole's victory on television and her winning song became a hit in all over Europe. And again they make reference to the East/West Germany in this when they say "The fall of the European communism and the German re-unification was the main issue of the songs of the 1990 Eurovision Song Contest in Zagreb". So clearly the EBU do note the fact there was an East and a West Germany. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 17:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I've seen a lot, but this is surely one of the silliest arguments I've seen on Wikipedia. The argument to assign only one win to Germany on the map implies that the pre-1989 Germany no longer exists. Need I say more?

Let me make a suggestion: With the same rigor, change every map of the USA in every context where a part of the events in question happened before Hawaii joined the Union. If you get away with it, I'll happily agree with your line of thinking.

This looks like a big fat case of POV-pushing OR to me, done by a special interest group. Get rid of it.-79.223.19.149 (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

the map is simply not true, the Federal Republic of Germany won twice not once, that is a fact - why is this page so anti-fact? 07:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.56.181.144 (talk)

Keep it civil please. There is nothing "anti-fact". On the contrary it is historically geographically factual. If we colour the entire nation of Germany as winning twice, then we are saying in the 1980s the whole of Germany (Federal and Democratic) won; when in fact only the Federal part won - which in historical geography purpose was only West Germany. In 2010 the landscape of FR Germany was larger, and that is shown in the second map. We have to show political correctness and historical geographical landscapes based on the time period. In this case, the landscape that FR Germany looked in 1982, and the landscape it looked in 2010. You can argue this until the cows come home, but it won't get changed, as it is common logical to show how the nation looked in both eras. Would you expect to to highlight the landmass of the USSR to show that they won 5 times (as Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, Russia, and Azerbaijan)? No you wouldn't. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 12:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You are all over the place calling people uncivil while threating to give them "a lashing". Maybe you should reconsider that position.

Every known source is against your position, including the ESC itself.

International law contradicts your position: (The Federal Republic of) Germany is still (the Federal Republic of) Germany. Your quasi-historical construction is followed by nobody, neither in Germany nor elsewhere, neither in politics, law, social life nor culture. Nobody denies that Germany is Germany, except you. From Germany: "The united Germany is considered to be the enlarged continuation of the Federal Republic and not a successor state."

Your position is untenable: Even now, you'd have to cover Transnistria and the Crimea, it's likely that others will follow. Are you prepared to keep the map up-to-date with events in Eastern Ukraine? Are you prepared to follow politics in Israel and Cyprus and reflect events on the map? Selfkant belonged to the Netherlands when they won 1957, will your map reflect that? Ignoring that, your map is inaccurate: West-Berlin is missing from the map and all lists in Wikipedia as the political entity is was until 1989. Are you prepared to fix that?

You failed to address almost every point put before you, and simply restate your position. Consensus here on Wikipedia is plainly against you. That should at least give you pause. You are pushing a very unique POV, and you should not revert the article to that position until you untied at least some of the knots.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

(Redacted) For the record, ESC themselves go against your view. Over 13 million West Germans watched Nicole's victory on television and her winning song became a hit in all over Europe (from the EBU). And again they make reference to the East/West Germany in this (from the EBU). (Redacted) Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 14:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

So your version of "civility" is calling my statements "shear evil aggression"?

Your source says, a few lines above the one you quoted: "Germany finally had its first win in the history of the song contest with its 27th try." - No mention of West Germany. And again a few lines below the one you quoted: "Finland’s entrant, Kojo, also sang about peace. His song - a protest against nuclear bombs - did not do as well as Germany's, however It received no points at all." Again, no mention at all of West-Germany.

Vauxhall's source is not merely an article, it's the result table, and it says: "Germany - Victories - Lena in 2010 - Nicole in 1982"

The rest of your argument seems to be that I am an IP and thus wrong by default. Your prejudice is noted, but it does not really hold water.

Again, you did not address the bulk of the arguments. As it stands right now, your position contradicts sources, law, custom and consensus. That is the position we are in right now.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Where is the consensus that you speak of? I see none at ArbCom? I can see why people state Germany won twice. But what people are arguing over is the map, and want to highlight the landmass of Germany in present day as having 2 wins. Doing so is incorrect. The land borders of FR Germany in 1982 and 2010 are completely different. And that is why both are highlighted on the winners map. There is the Germany as it looked during their 1982 win, and Germany as it looked in their 2010 win. On the table it still shows 2 wins, but on the map it shows 1 + 1 win, which if I am not mistaken equals 2. There is also the footnote which provides an explanation about it all. This debate has gone on for years, and has clearly not gone anywhere either. Perhaps we need to get some sort of WP:ARBCOM resolution once and for all. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 15:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

To look at it another way... based on what is being said about Germany, would also apply to Serbia. Yugoslavia won once, but so have Serbia. Would that mean we would highlight Serbia on the map as having two wins, because Serbia was once part of Yugoslavia? Would we in theory have to say Croatia won once, because the contest was held in Zagreb in 1990? The map itself depicts the fact that historically, Yugoslavia won once, and in present day, Serbia won once. Back in 1982, FR Germany was half the size in landmass, compared to present day FR Germany. And that factor is depicted on the map, showing the FR Germany win in 1982, based on how the country looked then on an atlas, and the win in 2010 based on how the country looks now on an atlas. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 15:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

When the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia broke up, the remaining part; the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (and then Serbia and Montenegro) did apply to be the "successor state", however, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 777 said that the SFR Yugoslavia "ceased to exist", and thus the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had to apply for all its memberships again. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 15:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, @AxG:. What do we do about Germany though? For the moment, people want Germany as it looks today to be highlighted as two wins, because Germany in 1982 was also known as FR Germany (like it is known today). However, in doing do, we'd ultimately be saying that in 1982, the German Democratic Republic also took part, and thus won alongside their Western counterpart; when it is a known fact that that is impossible. The Democratic side (aka East Germany) didn't take part in 1982. And that is why the map from how I see it, shows the wins based on how Germany looked in 1982, and how it looked in 2010. Unless, if we hatch-colour the west side to show 1 and 2 wins (1982 and 2010), and the east side as only having one win (2010). Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 16:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec) First of all, why do you think that consensus can only come from ArbCom? In the discussion here and in File talk:Eurovision winners map.svg, the only person defending your position is yourself. That is almost by itself "consensus". It should at the very least give you pause, and prevent you from pushing through your POV without regard.

In addition, you continue to miss a whole lot of arguments: What about law? What about custom? What about the fact that your position (and the map you defend) is inconsistent, since it ignores a whole lot of political changes? What about Algeria, Transnistria, the Crimea, Israel, Selfkant, Cyprus? Can you please respond to these arguments, instead of repeating your position again and again?

"based on what is being said about Germany, would also apply to Serbia." - No, it would not. Yugoslavia does not exist no longer anymore at all. Germany does.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You may not like me any more Wes, but I don't have any objections with Germany having 2 wins, since yes the Federal Republic of Germany was West Germany and is the current Germany, we have all the information in the one article and ARD is the same broadcaster, and based on the reason I gave above about Yugoslavia, FR Germany retained its memberships. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 16:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yugoslavia does not exist any more, I agree. But when they won in 1989 it did exist, and that is shown in the map, because Yugoslavia won in a time of history when the country existed. Germany exists now yes, as a reunified nation. But in 1982, it was divided into West and East. What people seem to want is to highlight Germany in its current reunified status as having two wins, but in 1982 Germany was not reunified. A bit like you say that Yugoslavia doesn't exist any more. In 1982, a reunified Germany didn't exist either. A reunified Germany only existed from 1990 onwards. And that is what's shown on the map. But in the table itself, it still shows Germany as 2 wins, the map shows 2 wins too, but divided geographically based on the fact a unified Germany never existed when they won in 1982, but did when they won in 2010. @AxG: I will always like you. Who else would I turn to when I get into technical difficulties with inkscape, lol. But yes, Germany won twice, I agree. But like I point out above, Germany in 2010 was reunified, Germany in 1982 was not. In both eras they are known as FR Germany. But to highlight on a reunified Germany that they won twice, would be saying that in 1982 East Germany was part of FR Germany and also won - and they didn't. East Germany took part in the Intervision Song Contest during the time that Germany was split into "West" and "East". Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 16:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

So you repeat your position again, and you again ignore a number of arguments against your position. Let me repeat: What about law? What about custom? What about the fact that your position (and the map you defend) is inconsistent, since it ignores a whole lot of political changes? What about Algeria, Transnistria, the Crimea, Israel, Selfkant, Cyprus? What about the consensus here and elsewhere? Can you please respond to these arguments?-91.10.30.120 (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is only one way around this that I can think of to date. The winners map has an insert showing Yugoslavia and the then commonly known "East and West Germany's". Would colouring Germany as it stands now as 2 wins, and the Germany in the insert with its 1982 win in the era that Germany was divided. Would this work, or would it cause more confusion? Well, if I am repeating, then it is clear there is an issue in regards to how the map of Germany looked in 1982 and present day - a huge flipping difference. Have we forgotten about the Berlin wall already, which divided Germany into Federal and Democratic? That was law too. Germany was seen as being a divided nation in 1982. Are we just going ignore that factual law? I doubt the citizens who lived in the German Democratic Republic, would want to be classified as being part of the Federal Republic of Germany, when FR Germany won in 1982. We need to respect them too. And you never answered my question either IP91, when I asked if you would consider pushing for a reform in how Project Eurovision operates - as we'd ultimately be able to lay to rest a lot of issues like this current too in its process. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 16:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yugoslavia won, but is no longer on the map - that is special situation. Germany is not.

"Are we just going ignore that factual law?" - I don't: The actual law contradicts your position and says that Germany (2015) is the same entity as Germany (1949). It shape changed, the entity did not.

"I doubt the citizens who lived in the German Democratic Republic, would want to be classified as being part of the Federal Republic of Germany, when FR Germany won in 1982." - Nobody makes that point. I'm pretty sure however that at least some of them felt like Germans when Nicole won.

"And you never answered my question either IP91, when I asked if you would consider pushing for a reform in how Project Eurovision operates" - I'm not interested in that topic, I'm interested in the article.

Still unanswered: What about the position the law has to the nature of Germany? What about custom? What about the fact that your position (and the map you defend) is inconsistent, since it ignores a whole lot of political changes? What about Berlin, Algeria, Transnistria, the Crimea, Israel, Selfkant, Cyprus? What about the consensus here and elsewhere? Can you please respond to these arguments?-91.10.30.120 (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that an editor over at WikiCommons has also agreed with the same view and understands what has happened here. They note that "that small map at the top right with the country borders before the German re-unification and the splitting of Yugoslavia indicates their first wins", and the main map that shows country borders after the German re-unification indicates their second win. At least someone else understand the map. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 09:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Not really, no. I listed the numerous problems with your position below. Feel free to engange them whenever you are ready.-79.223.26.113 (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I just paid a visit to Commons. You failed to tell us that one editor understands your map (but not necessarily supports it over the alternative), while three speak against your position. AGF has limits, and I would consider this slanted reporting to be dishonest. You also fail to tell us that the one editor understanding your position did not so initially. See below, where I state that your map is not explaining the facts in a clear way.-79.223.26.113 (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is really, and you are now being ignoramus towards another editor at commons who doesn't even know about this discussion right here and now. Would you like me to notify them that you have basically discredited their view and completely ignoring them? I'm sure they would wipe you down the walls in disgust. Anyway, as I have told you before, I will point-blank refuse to engage in your request, until you have complied with etiquette rules and redacted comments that are profoundly derogatory and tarnishing my personality in a libellous manner. And cease immediately with the bullying attacks, if you continue I will escalate matters to admin intervention. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 13:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I already invited them to join.

I listed the numerous problems with your position below. Feel free to engange them whenever you are ready.-79.223.26.113 (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

91's Position

It's getting a bit too fuzzy, so I will try to summarize my current position.

• The Federal Republic of Germany exists without interruptions since 1949. It was enlarged in 1990, but legally, as well as culturally and economically (whether you like it or not), the new Länder are merely an extension.
• Culturally, people living in the GDR regarded themselves as Germans, and they still do. If one of them would disregard Nicole's win because "she only won for Germany, not for the GDR", people would probably look at him funny and back slowly away from him. Culturally and within the legal fiction common in West Germany, Nicole won for the entirety of Germany.
• The situation is not comparable to the one in Yugoslavia: Germany existed continuously over the entire lifetime of the ESC. To explain the situation with regards to Yugoslavia, I would attempt to use different pattern of the same color along with an explanation to make the map readable.
• It's hard to find a source that even mentions the "West" in West Germany, most simply assume that Germany has two wins. Most importantly, the result page on the ESC's website lists both wins without qualifier. According to the ESC, Germany has two wins.
• The map is currently inconsistent, as it ignores a number of other political changes that happened over the years. Wesley has so far made no attempt to explain why Germany's situation is different enough to warrant a map inset. It is also already obvious that the situation will get more complicated in the future.
• The map is also not doing its job of explaining a simple set of facts in a clear way.
• The position that Germany won kind of 1.5 ESCs is unique and bizarre. I live in Germany, and I would have a hard time even explaining Wesley's position; it can literally not expressed in words, as Wesley himself has demonstrated again and again. It is held by a single editor, the overwhelming consensus here and on the map's talk page is to change the map to plainly assign two wins to Germany.

So far, so good. Now please respond, and be civil.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Collapse in accordance with TPG. See WP:NOT.

Be civil.. hmm. Bit hard to do when one has just attacked yet again, and not just aimed at myself, but aimed at the general public too. And that is not my view, but fact per WP:WIAPA. We cannot assume that "people would probably look at [him] funny and back slowly away from [him]" in context to the people of GDR. That is a personal opinion of your own, and we cannot speak for people of GDR without solid proof to back up such claim. Wording things like that in an attempt to use one's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting overall views. We certainly shouldn't be POV railroading either, and that is clearly happening here. Because I, an editor with an opposing viewpoint, is being discredited and eliminated from a discussion. And why single me out in a comment by saying "Wesley has so far made no attempt to explain why Germany's situation is different enough to warrant a map inset"? Wikipedia:Etiquette#Principles of Wikipedia etiquette comes into strong play with all of that mudslinging. IP91 is forgetting keep in mind that raw text may be ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of them. So one should not single out a user, as that is a form of attack. IP91 has repeatedly asked me to respond to their questions, and at present I refuse to do so until they retract or at least apologies for some of the distasteful remarks and the want to requote my own words, as per WP:AVOIDABUSE, quoting someone's comments is unacceptable, and I have kindly asked twice that they refrain from quoting me, as it comes across as though they are implying I have dementia and failure to remember what I have written. But the IP has point-blank refused to acknowledge my request to cease with the re-quoting. If the IP wishes for me to return to their "civil debate", then a courteous acknowledgement and respect to Wikipedia etiquette needs to be adhered to from all parties, including myself. Wes Mouse | T@lk 18:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Please use my user page and/or Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes for any complaint about my behaviour. Here, they are just a distraction. I'm looking forward to your response to my position.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC) @91.10.30.120: all I am asking is that you kindly remove my name from the bullet-point comments of yours above, as it is singling me out and I do not appreciate that kind of behaviour. If there are remarks that I have made that you were to ask me to remove, then I would gladly oblige to such upon request of course. Wes Mouse | T@lk 21:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Was my remark inaccurate? In that case I would gladly remove it. You are not forced to discuss the actual problems with the article, but if you don't, again, please use other venues. Until then, I'm looking forward to your response about the actual question at hand.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC) For the fifth and final time I kindly ask that you retract the remarks that you have personally aimed at me, when we should be aiming at the issue. We discuss issues, not personalities. Such comments as "The map is currently inconsistent, as it ignores a number of other political changes that happened over the years. Wesley has so far made no attempt to explain why Germany's situation is different enough to warrant a map inset. It is also already obvious that the situation will get more complicated in the future." and "I live in Germany, and I would have a hard time even explaining Wesley's position; it can literally not expressed in words, as Wesley himself has demonstrated again and again." are aimed directly at my personality and not at the matter at hand. Per WP:RPA, I have asked you several times now, and you are refusing to comply with such request, thus leaving me no other choice but to implement procedure and add {{RPA}} to the remarks that I feel to be defamatory to my personality. Wes Mouse | T@lk 22:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Right, let's aim at the issue: I'm looking forward to your response about the actual issue, the map. For everything else, please find another location, eg. my user page.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Remove/redact the remarks first that I have pointed out and have kindly asked you to remove. Wes Mouse | T@lk 22:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Your choice. My position stands.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC) And so does mine. At least I can be courteous and {{Redacted}} my comments. Pity that you cannot do the same, even when I've kindly asked you to do so several times now. Wes Mouse | T@lk 22:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Want to talk about position again? Great! I rebutted yours, see above. I'm looking forward to your response!-91.10.30.120 (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC) OK you are refusing to redact comments, leaving me with no other choice. Wes Mouse | T@lk 22:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Please take a step back and look at what you are doing here. Stop wasting our time.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Telling someone to Have the cake or eat it is a threat and a personal attack. Cease now! And I will not agree to this being collapsed, until you have at least complied to my request to have my name redacted from your comments. And you are the one wasting time. You want to hear my opinion on the issue. I have said I will give it, but only after you have redacted the comments that I kindly asked you to remove. So it is you who is wasting time by not doing the simplest of tasks and just remove what it is someone has asked you to remove. Wes Mouse | T@lk 23:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Wesley's position There are a few questions that I would like to raise about this, all of which are positive and depending on the answer, could persuade me into rethinking the whole map thing to agree the views of others. But I will not put my question forward until the personally aimed remarks, that I have asked to be removed, have actually been carried out. Wes Mouse | T@lk 23:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC) I hope I misunderstand you. You will only bring up your plan to improve the article once I stop being naughty? Please tell me you mean that in a different way.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC) You do understand things, great! Indeed, I will not make public the question I wish to ask, until you have redacted the comments that I have kindly asked you to remove. Simple request, just needs you to carry it out, or allow me permission to redact them on your behalf. Then we can proceed to the resolution stage and the question I wish to put forward. I have already demonstrated that I can redact unsightly remarks that I may have made, and collapsed huge sections in accordance with WP:TPG, which go against WP:NOT. Are you able to reciprocate the civil gesture and redact remarks too? Wes Mouse | T@lk 23:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Feel free to engage my arguments as soon as you are ready.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion Request

I will be deleting the third opinion request as incorrect for that noticeboard. It is for issues where there are only two editors involved. I see two registered editors and what appear to be at least two IP addresses. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy of the historical hatred perpetration aspect.

> Criticism and controversy

The section should also mention that ESC rules heavily discriminate against some participant countries. Since nobody can vote for themselves, each country is at the mercy of the others. Countries with few or no friends have no chance to win or even score well, no matter how catchy a song and what an excellent singer they run. Thus the ESC rules perpetrate a millenia's historical ballast of mutual hatred and are actually detrimental to friendship and unity within Europe.

The situation is direst for Hungary, which has never received more than 1,000 votes from any foreign country except Poland, due to the many enemies Hungary has. (In the 1920 post-WW1 forced peace treaty of Versailles-Trianon, France was instrumental in curbing away 2/3rd of territory and 50% of population from Hungary. Clemanceu redistributed that to neighbouring countries of Serbia-Yugoslavia, Romania, Czech-Slovakia and USSR. In those countries the populace is still taught to hate Hungary in schools, due to the logic of "a thief can't rest while the owner is still alive". Hungary retaliated by a massive forgery campaign against the french paper franc in 1925, thus the french also hate Hungary.) Germany also doesn't vote for Hungary, because Hungary was the last remaining vassal of the Third Reich, its riverine gunboats fought until May 8th 13:00z and the germans are ashamed of that period in their history.

In this situation, the ban on forming mixed-nation bands means some hated countries, like Hungary remain eternal pariahs in ESC and it cannot be helped. Can you imagine a 100 meter sprint race where the winner is determined by national sympathies and grievances, rather than the stopwatch? 82.131.149.123 (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Your reasoning makes no sense as Iceland for example has placed second, twice. Even though they have no neighbours. United Kingdom and Ireland has plenty of wins though they only have each other as neighbours. Of course there are regional voting, but overall it does not effect the results in terms of winners. And to make some comparison between old times and Hungary at ESC today, well if that was true then Germany would get zero points each year. Regards--BabbaQ (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on why Hungary does or does not get votes, but there's a big difference between not having any neighbors who share a land boundary with your country and not having any 'friends' or political allies within the ESC which is what the original comment was talking about. In some cases sharing a land boundary can make two countries less likely to get along because there are likely to have been border disputes at some point in their past (although the same can be true of countries with seas between them, see England and France pretty much right up until WW1 for example), but it's also entirely possible to be allied with a country that's nowhere near yours. 82.68.159.246 (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Whilst there appears to be some truth in your claim, in that Hungary is generally disliked by those countries it ruled over during the Empire period, and from whom it tried to reclaim territory during WW2 (Croatia, Serbia, Cezh, Slovakia, Romania) I do not believe this extends to the many other European countries who vote in ESC. Thus I cannot believe the issue is as influential as you suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.75.156 (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Dubious claim in the Lede

The lede says: "Winning the Eurovision Song Contest provides an opportunity for the winning artists to capitalise on the surrounding publicity and further their careers"

Some sources are named, but overall the claim is highly dubious:

• Domenico Modugno made third place. I never heard of the man, and no source is given.
• Celine Dion is working out of North America, where the ESC is mostly unknown.
• Julio Iglesias made fourth place, tied with two other artists.
• Conchita Wurst is (still) the current winner, let's see whether or not she is forgotten after the next ESC.

That leaves Abba, the only success story I'm aware of, and possibly Bucks Fizz (I barely remember them), who where active for a few years after their ESC success. That's at most two cases out of dozens of winners, second and third places, an abysmal record for a song contest of this popularity.

The two sources are horrible to support the case. Here is a quote from one of them: "While most Eurovision winners quickly, and perhaps deservedly, fade back into obscurity, the contest helped launch the careers of ABBA and Celine Dion." Yes, the source contradicts the claim. The other source does not even mention the ESC.

Unless someone can find a reason to keep it, I propose to cut this section down to Abba, and possibly a mention of the fact that publicity is not gained except for a very short time (as the source says).91.10.12.68 (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

"provides an opportunity" is adequate wording to cover the possibility I think. Leave as is. NewKingsRoad (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The ESC also "provides an opportunity" to pick your nose in front of a large audience. That does not mean that that is typical for the ESC, and it does certainly not mean that it should be in the lede. The claim is at best badly sourced, and quite possibly wrong, in any meaningful sense of the word (ie. misleading).-79.223.27.221 (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:CITELEAD, lead sections are not suppose to contain citations anyway. Lead sections summarise the content written in the main article body, which would contain the said citations. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 11:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Whatev, the same content does not belong in the lede or anywhere else in the article, since it's not happening.-79.223.27.221 (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Collapse in accordance with TPG. See WP:NOT.

And please @79.223.27.221:, keep it civil. There was no need for the sarcastic "whatev" remark. One should assume good faith in people. All I was pointing out is that citations shouldn't even be in the lead anyway. I was not commenting on the issue at hand. But if you wish that I did.... then be prepared for the lashing. Wes Mouse | T@lk 12:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC) "Prepared for the lashing" is non-aggressive and civil?-91.10.30.120 (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Hypothetical speak. No aggression intended. Sheesh, did someone get out of the wrong side of their bed this morning? Wes Mouse | T@lk 13:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC) It is an idiom phrase that I coined myself. And looking at it now, it does look a bit harsh. Allow me to explain. In real life I use the phrase "be prepared for the lashing"; which translates from my own idiom to English as meaning "be ready as I can be an active debater and love the soapbox". It is not meant in a negative way. Wes Mouse | T@lk 13:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC) And again you respond with a personal remark about others, and again one that could easily be applied to yourself. You should simply stop commenting on people's behaviour.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC) @Wes: Please do comment on the issue at hand, as it is right now nobody contradicted the position that the lede should be changed. Do you?-91.10.30.120 (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC) OK fair enough, I shall comment per your request. Firstly, the IP who asked the question made reference to sources in the lead section. I merely pointed out that per WP:CITELEAD that there shouldn't be any citations in that section anyway, as the lead only summarises content from the entire article. Are the points raised that appear in the lead, also appear in more detail within the main article body? If so, do they go into better detail? If they do, then the lead just needs to be re-written to summarise the article. If not, then the article body that relates to the lead summary needs to be improved. The question at hand is do artists capitalise on the surrounding publicity and further their careers? Well, some could argue that they do, some would argue they don't. But wouldn't that be down to personal judgement and how well-known former winners have become across Europe and the world? ABBA and Celine Dion; have become global superstars since winning Eurovision. Bucks Fizz only became a success across Europe. Then there are participants who have never won, but have still gone on to greater success in their musical careers, such as Cliff Richard and Olivia Newton-John. If the article is to look and decide who would be "the greater successors of Eurovision", could in theory be based on the quality level of their respective BLP article. If it is a feature article, then I'd be inclined to say that artists has gone onto great success. There is a lot to be changed though, not just here, but across the entire WikiProject Eurovision area. And I have many a time in the past pushed for a reform in how the project operates, so that we can improve in our standards, and then we'd ultimately never get into these complexed over-heated debates. But every time I have instigated a reform, I just get told to "shut up, it won't happen". But clearly a reform is in need to happen, so that everyone is clear on how to operate, in accordance of course with Wikipedia core policies. If people like yourself, were to give backing for a reform, then we'd be one step closer to clearing a hell of a lot of long-running debates, such as this and Germany wins debates. But that of course, is up to you if you are willing to back a reform. Wes Mouse | T@lk 16:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC) First, the issue is independent of the location within the article. "Well, some could argue that they do, some would argue they don't. But wouldn't that be down to personal judgement" - No, it would not. The source says the success usually does not come after a victory, the opposite of what the article currently says. "If it is a feature article, then I'd be inclined to say that artists has gone onto great success." - Wikipedia is not a valid source, and in this case, the metric is almost unconnected to the question. One devoted fan with a talent for writing is enough make an article FA, it says nothing about the overall significance. What reform are you talking about? This is about the article, not about the project.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Please don't quote my comments, I am not of dementia that I need to be reminded what I have said. So I kindly ask that you do not quote my text again. And the reform yes is for the project, but seeing as all these articles fall under the project scope, then ultimately the reform would carry a huge impact across all of the articles, how they should be written, stylised, etc. Reforming how the project should look after its articles will resolve a hell of a lot of issues like this. Wes Mouse | T@lk 16:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Australia?

Needed updating regarding Australia being invited to join. NewKingsRoad (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Please don't mix up sections.-79.223.27.221 (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Collapse in accordance with TPG. See WP:NOT.

And please @79.223.27.221:, keep it civil and do not be aggressive in comments to editors. Wes Mouse | T@lk 12:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Keep it civil and don't accuse other editors of fictional wrongdoings. What in "Please don't mix up sections." do you consider to be aggressive?-91.10.30.120 (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Do you normally poke into other's conversations? Wes Mouse | T@lk 13:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC) This is not the place to have a private conversation. It would be more useful to address the point I made.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Maybe one should practice what they preach then. Like you say, this is not the place for a private conversation - so why have you instigated such in various places? Do you get a kick out of hounding people? Harrassment is not tolerated on Wikpedia, in case you were not aware. Wes Mouse | T@lk 14:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Where in heaven do you get the idea that I hound you? Where is that private conversation you are talking about?-91.10.30.120 (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC) In reply to the "private conversation" part; you said it yourself here that this is not the place to have a private conversation. As for the hounding, do I really need to provide all the diffs as evidence? You've gone to almost every thread on various talk pages to debates in which only I have participated in, and then aimed somewhat attacking remarks at myself. Clear hounding. Wes Mouse | T@lk 16:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Of course I said that this is not the place, but my question was where I had one with you. I participate in various issues concerning one article, half of the discussions were started by myself. Do you think that you are the spokesperson for this article, and that everything concerns you? So no hounding at all, and frankly I'm starting to get fed up with your personal attacks. Be civil and focus on the article, not on my person.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC) If you tell people to be civil, then you should also be civil to them. Treat people how you wish to be treated in return. I never implied that you had a private conversation with me - where did you get that idea from? You were the one to tell me that this is not the place for private conversations. But one could say in telling someone about privacy is also a private conversation. But that is neither here nor there. I think it is best that you and I took some time-out from each other, as we are clearly getting nowhere. A bit of breathing space and cooling off period may rebalance the situation. So if you don't mind, I would like to call a 3-hour cool-off. Gives me chance to get some painkillers for my almost amputated toe and have a catnap too. Wes Mouse | T@lk 16:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC) I will quote you whenever I see the need. "I never implied that you had a private conversation with me - where did you get that idea from?" - From this: "Do you normally poke into other's conversations?" and this: "Like you say, this is not the place for a private conversation - so why have you instigated such in various places?" Why are we talking about this?-91.10.30.120 (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC) And it is common courtesy and obligatory that if an editor has kindly asked you not to do something - in this case I have kindly asked you to stop quoting my text as if to downgrade my integrity - that you acknowledge their request and be courteous in trying ones best to refrain from doing what it is they asked. If you wish for me to respond in future, then I would appreciate that you cease quoting my own text in an attacking and derogatory manner. I will not respond any further until such re-quoting has stopped. Wes Mouse | T@lk 17:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC) You should have taken that cool-off break. Your reaction is over the top. Please reconsider.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Participation

This needs attention - as the show develops each year, so do participation rules.NewKingsRoad (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Lede again

How can the ESC be "the longest running annual TV song competition" if it is based on the Sanremo Music Festival, an annual TV song competition? Yes I've read the source, but it's contradicted in the very same paragraph. What's going on here?-79.223.27.221 (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Probably for the fact they Eurovision Song Contest has been recognised by the Guinness Book of Records as being the longest running annual TV song competition. Did you not pay attention to Jon Ola Sand when he announced that news on Saturday? Although it did strike me as odd seeing as ESC is supposed to be based off San Remo. Ah well, one of those unexplained oddities. Just in case anyone missed what we are on about, here's the source from the EBU: Just hours ahead of the Grand Final of the 60th Eurovision Song Contest the European Broadcasting Union is proud to have been awarded a GUINNESS WORLD RECORD for Longest Running Annual TV Music Competition!. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 12:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of the source. That does not change the fact that the lede contradicts itself: The ESC cannot both be based on an older, still existing song contest and be the oldest song contest.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Collapse in accordance with TPG. See WP:NOT.

(Redacted) Read my comment again. I agreed with the other IP. And I provided a link to what the IP and myself were talking about in case anyone came along and wondered what we were on about. That, my friend, is called being helpful to others. Wes Mouse | T@lk 14:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC) I attacked you? With what?-91.10.30.120 (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Well I can drop the stick; can you? All I did was provide a link to the sourced document that myself and the IP was discussing, so that any new comers to this debate were able to access it and gain some understanding what it is that's being discussed here. Only providing help for people. I always thought being helpful and providing evidence was a good thing. I hold my hand up and won't bother helping in future. People can search for sources themselves. Wes Mouse | T@lk 16:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC) I'm not talking about the source, I'm talking about your personal attacks ("you've just demonstrated shear ignorance and purposely intending to attack an experienced editor"). I merely asked you why you think I attacked you. Since you speak of hounding elsewhere, it would be a blockable offense, so I don't think you allegations should be ignored.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Representation of Germany's Wins in the Map

There is an ongoing debate about the way Germany is represented on the map, above. Please let us know what you think about the matter.

Thanks!-79.223.26.113 (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)