Jump to content

Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tvx1 (talk | contribs) at 11:18, 13 May 2024 (→New article: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Do we need "the inclusion of Israel" paragraph on the top page?

Controversies have their own topic in this article. I don't understand why Israel's participation has to get special mention on the top page. Usually the top page only includes dates, location, and the withdrawing and returning countries. "The inclusion of Israel" should be removed. It is right after Romania's decision to opt-out. What does Romania opting out have to do with "the inclusion of Israel"? Tonyb1989 (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tonyb1989 In normal circumstances such a line would not be included, however Israel's participation this year has generated heaps of media coverage and controversy that it would be unfeasible to leave it out from lead entirely. Other experienced editors may be able to provide further reasoning for this though. Pdhadam (talk) 07:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I would like more reasoning. I understand that Israel's participation has created controversy. But I cannot find other articles where the controversy is mentioned in the top page. So yes, I would like to read more reasoning. Why other controversies are not on the top page on other years? Tonyb1989 (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah take it out it’s undue weight and npov PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More information on Eric Saade's keffiyeh

Eric Saade responded to the statement by the EBU with a quite effective response, I suppose it may be relevant information to add to the current section on his performance. Translated roughly, he says that he got the keffiyeh from his father during his youth and it was unimaginable that it would be considered a political symbol one day, and it would be like calling the traditional Swedish 'Dalahästen' a political symbol. He goes on to say the stance/statement by the EBU is plain racism and refers to this years' slogan: United by Music. https://www.svt.se/kultur/har-kuppar-saade-hade-palestinasjal-runt-handen Andthereitis (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just added Saade's main points in the section. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above context has been removed during a recent pruning. I believe it could and should be re-added succinctly.
— VariousDeliciousCheeses (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian broadcaster

They had 25 mins of the show cut off. This may have caused Poland and Iceland not to qualify. 109.176.113.2 (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is already present in a note in the "Broadcasts" section. Unless the EBU comments, though, it's not our place to say that the two countries might have gotten less votes for that. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2024 (2)

As in past years, when some countries broke their qualification strike or qualified to the final after a long time, that was detailed, so in this year case, Ireland’s, Latvia’s and Georgia’s qualification after 6, 7 and 7 years shall be highlighted. 81.0.36.253 (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please explain what changes you would like to be made. Kingsif (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Weaponising antisemitism”

Is it really fair to link to the page on the weaponising of antisemitism for Netenyahu’s claims of antisemitism. Surely it would be better to say that he thinks it’s antisemitism but others have accused him of weaponising it? To link directly to it makes it seem like fact rather than opinion. 94.173.220.20 (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He brought up antisemitism as a response to human rights protests. Kinda speaks for itself. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 07:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still very much just your opinion being presented as fact. 94.173.220.20 (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Controversies”

This article is only going to be bogged down if it keeps in it a ‘controversies’ section. The whole section is always a POV can of worms over what to include and exclude. This year in particular. I mean the excessive detail, length and cruft included is maddening when it comes to some things and this year is no exception. Plus the use of poor and depreciated sources is frequently done. It’s a shit show to have such a section, no one is ever happy and it just cases edit conflicts. As such this article must not get to be derailed by one it must be eliminated or seriously considered as to what is a controversy and what is not and that is likely to be a tarpit on top of quicksand. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PicturePerfect666 I do agree in that the controversies related to Israel in the contest this year should be condensed ASAP in the article, but mass removing them without prior discussion isn't a good move. @IvanScrooge98 has done most of the lifting, so it's a good starting point to discuss with. Pdhadam (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did condense the section but was reverted without reason by the user you mentioned. Additionally no one user is ‘a good stating point’ as that asserts they have some kind of WP:Ownership, which is a no-no, see also WP:BRD. As I have set out above the section has serious issues and if these can be overcome those I’ll be happy to pare it down but seriously the excessive detail; what was written on banners and graffitied that’s not needed, quote after quote after none of them are needed, the number of protests completely unnecessary. The section and all ‘controversies’ sections are a mess and this is no different. It has strayed in to commentary, bias, and news reporting of the actions of one set of individuals with little regard to encyclopaedic value and content. What the entrants did I can see a value to that, such as the statement and words or symbols removed or included in outfits. Otherwise it’s just being a news outlet and straying from the focus of the article. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry but this section is the result of months of work of different editors. If I have expanded it significantly in these last few days, it’s because a lot of things are happening one after the other. You can’t Just come and make mass removals. I believe when dust has settled in the next days we will know how to deal more properly. Now, if you could tell me more in detail what sources you have an issue with, we can at least start from there. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of work and number of editors is completely irrelevant. That is an assertion of WP:Ownership, based on well hard work went in. Which is a major no-no of Wikipedia. Also ‘dust settling’ does not mean the issues raised to get a hand wave away. Serious issues such as WP:NPOV, WP:Bloat and WP:Deprecated. Tabloid newspapers are an example source to avoid, the full list is in a table in the link provided. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why have all the incidents of the Israeli delegation harassing other contestants been removed? This section paints Israel in a very positive light which is not reflective of the reality? 78.19.18.167 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The section was pared-down and there is limited evidence of the harassment as claimed. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank A.D.Hope (talk · contribs) for cleaning up the section and making it compliant with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. It removes the tabloid reporting, overt detail, one-sidedness, and the in-depth platforming of one portion of events. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“one sidedness” do you also accuse the page on the holocaust of being one sided and not presenting the nazi viewpoint fairly? 83.253.25.95 (talk) 07:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
False equivalence and completely inappropriate as a comment to make. Such a dreadful strawman. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 10:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's very one sided now though? 78.19.18.167 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Table accessibility

I've just edited the 'Final' table to reduce the intensity of the red used to show the Netherlands' disqualification; the original colour had poor contrast with the blue links. I've also added a double dagger so that this information is not conveyed solely by colour.

However, I'm not as familiar with MOS:ACCESSIBILITY (specifically MOS:COLOUR) as I'd like to be, so if anyone would like to double-check this then please do. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Israeli participation" subsection

I'd appreciate it if another editor could double-check my edit to Eurovision Song Contest 2024#Israeli_participation. I've attempted to condense it considerably, particularly as this is not the main article for the topic. As the topic is controversial it seems responsible to draw particular attention to the changes. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request


According to NOS, the Dutch national broadcaster,[1] which is a source in the article, the AVROTROS stement says Joost Klein didn't make a threatening gesture, but a threatening movement (NL: beweging --> EN: movement[2], while NL: gebaar --> EN: gesture[3]). I believe this should be changed.

Maksiwood 2 (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Happy to take your word for it on the translation, in conjunction with the sources. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not at all that this claim is correct though. As a native dutch speaker I can confirm the litteral translations are correct. On does not make a movement at someone, one executes a movement (e.g. taking steps) towards someone. However in Dutch this strict difference does not exist. The words “beweging” and “gebaar” are used interchangeable in common parlance. Having read the entire statement, the context makes gesture the correct translation. Tvx1 19:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very happy to defer to others on the translation. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some recent updates. The EBU is disputing the AVROTROS/Klein’s version of the incident through their director-general Noel Curran.[4] It appears the Dutch broadcaster is trying to downplay the incident.Tvx1 21:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://nos.nl/collectie/13971/liveblog/2520041-avrotros-joost-klein-was-boos-omdat-hij-gefilmd-werd-hij-raakte-cameravrouw-niet-aan
  2. ^ https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/dutch-english/beweging
  3. ^ https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/dutch-english/gebaar
  4. ^ https://m.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20240511_97631234

New article

Would any editors support creating a new article titled "Controversies of the Eurovision Song Contest 2024", which would combine everything in the current #Incidents and controversies section, as well as a big chunk of the Israel in Eurovision 2024 article — IмSтevan talk 17:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think that’s warranted. I think this article deals with sufficiently already.Tvx1 19:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unnecessary
there are already articles on each country.
Another article is pointless duplication. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's almost necessary - each annual event article contains very little specific information, most split out into country-by-year sub-articles. To comply with broadness and neutrality (i.e. giving appropriate levels of coverage for all aspects), there's no way the 'overview' article should then be so specific about controversies. It should have its own sub-article, too. Kingsif (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is necessary on Wikipedia. Tvx1 00:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very true and such an article would just be duplicative and go into far too much detail on Israel which is the real reason why this is being proposed.
It must be remembered this is an encyclopaedia not a repository for all things on a news item where people are shouting loudly. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems implicitly clear that you oppose a very sensible split just because you don't want another article mentioning criticisms of Israel. I encourage you to see this request in the good faith way I believe it was intended, as a sensible procedural move to contain relevant information when it is too large for an overview article. Kingsif (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you believe unequivocally for the split so lets leave it there. Phrasing like "a very sensible split just because..." is irrelevant and not of value to this discussion. Also your claims regarding Israel should be stuck as a personal attack as you are casting an aspersion based on something which your are conclusion jumping to. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was replying to you, not making a point for discussion - the phrasing is of value in addressing your irrelevant objections. But let's leave it there if you're going to keep making up irrelevant reasons and pointing to whataboutisms to try and prevent a very sensible split because you WP:DONTLIKEIT. Kingsif (talk) 11:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is notice of disengagement with you as you are engaged in attacks and conclusion jumping and are not constructive in your comments. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so (below) I ask for you to explain your reasons and stop saying my comments have no value, and you think you're being constructive. Glad you'll leave me alone, though, after you just actively sought out one of my replies to somebody else to try and completely dismiss my arguments for no reason. Kingsif (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support This year is definitely the most controversial ever with loads of incidents, there's not much detail in the current main article (which should be mostly a TL;DR). Tidjani Saleh (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It hardl is. This just is recentism. Tvx1 00:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope it is not, it just feels like it is because of recentism. It could easily be argued the UK act getting attacked on stage was more controversial or the allegations of a winner snorting drugs was more controversial. You could reach back into Cliff Richard losing for Britain in 1968 because of alleged Spanish vote buying or the year Celine Dione won for Switzerland by a single point. Throughout the years controversy reigns. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't disagree more. There has never been an artist being disqualified in the middle of the contest, or the potential of an unfolding lawsuit after the contest, and a narrow victory is hardly comparable to incidents which have police involvement. Kapitan110295 (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about wether a specific article is necessary or not, but it definitely needs expansion. For example, there's no mention of Bambie Thug's complaint to the EBU regarding Kan's commentary about them. Vnizette (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the existing section covers the controversies enough. There is no need for a new article in my opinion. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 04:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're still missing all the stuff regarding Bambie Thug, iolanda, Nemo, Olly Alexander, Slimane, 5 minuust & Puuluup, Tali, and many reports of the Israeli delegation's actions - and probably more I can't think of off the top of my head — IмSтevan talk 07:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I support a separate article. Going into detail about the experiences of every artist would take a long time but would still be important and would be better in it's own article DukeDragon28 (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right now? Probably not needed (though the existing section should definitely mention more of the behind the scenes stuff around Bambie and KAN). But definitely should be kept in mind for the future, some of these controversies are likely to continue well past the contest. Euan777777 (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support
A lot has been going on, and Eurovision 2024 shouldn't become bloated or unnavigatable. Thomediter (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as this should not be its own article. It needs to stay as a section of the current one to keep all of the contest history together. Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this should be slipt, keep it all together to let people know of what happened to this contest specifically. Jhlords2 (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support it, as it would keep the main article navigable and allow the full details of the controversies be found in one place, not buried and summarised in the main article. JeuIro8 (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of that best goes on the individual articles of the acts, no need to duplicate.

Then why not just put all of it at the artist's/country's articles? Answer: because it's also relevant to the running of the competition. But given the extreme length of this overall article, and the lack of detail about any other topic, it is not appropriate to go into any level of depth for the relevant controversies. If there was only one or two, as in many previous years, that would be more appropriate, but not when it's multiple incidents and getting longer than the hosting section. The information is good to keep but should be split, on procedural grounds, and any !vote about not liking multiple articles is completely irrelevant. Kingsif (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an excuse to create duplication and that goes against Wikipedia. there are always controversies at every year and simply going well now is absurd. Keep to the country articles and the main article. no more articles are needed as that is just a waste of Wikipedia space and duplication. "given the extreme length of this overall article, and the lack of detail about any other topic" This is covered by Wikipedia policies to stop excessive detail, focus on recentism, news reporting and treating Wikipedia as a repository for everything. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't distinguish between an explanation of good reasons to split, and excuses to create duplication – or, more likely, refuse to acknowledge the difference when you just don't want the split – then you have no place commenting. Just explain your reasons if you have them and stop attacking the integrity/value of mine. Kingsif (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please tone down and abandon the conclusion jumping and aspersions. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you stalk my comments, try and write my views off completely, and you don't think you're the one who needs to tone it down. I thought we talked about this. Kingsif (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - A separate article is unnecessary. The mere length of an article cannot be enough reason to split it up. Question is whether the topic itself deserves a standalone article and I don't think so in this case. If your goal is to shorten the article, I strongly suggest removing the OGAE voting paragraph, since that has nothing to do with the official event and gives a level of importance to the OGAE that they don't have. OGAE voting over the years is a prime example of a topic that would warrant a separate article. Hhl95 (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The mere length of an article cannot be enough reason to split it up. – No? Length is an incredibly common reason for splitting. And, per ITN comments, is a major concern at this article. The two-sentence OGAE paragraph would barely make a dent.
    For what it's worth, I personally think that, in terms of length, there are many other things that need splitting or condensing. I'm writing a separate proposal below. My personal concerns with the length of this controversies section (as mentioned above) is that it's too long compared to the lengths of sections of other things that are more important.
    As for topic - a really good thing to bring up by the way - there's a reason that when long articles get split up, the controversies and issues and concerns kind of sections are among the first to go: tangential to the main event, but relevant in how it was received, detail is good but not priority. Kingsif (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Agree with Kingsifs reply to Hhl95 above - the article is way too long however the controversy section isn't the issue and in fact when I preview-removed that whole section it barely did anything in terms of length, the broadcast table and Participating countries table are excessively long and probably should be condensed or split, Right solution just the wrong section listed. –Davey2010Talk 15:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a way to make those tables collapsible so they take up less space? The information in those tables (while long) pertains more to the contest as a whole than the controversy section. JPStrickler (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Several of those tables can just be removed or shortened. I did some suggestions further down the talk page, where there is another section about the length of the article. Hhl95 (talk) 08:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per PicturePerfect666 and Davey2010. IMHO, the controversies are already well presented in the existing section. GidiD (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the section is missing a lot of events, but expanding it might take up too much of the focus D4NT3023 (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - there's a lot in that section, and I could see the use of splitting it off into a new page. JPStrickler (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why though there are already 37 sub pages we don’t need a 38th. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This seems sensible to me. These things are more loosely related to the contest than most of the other segments, and splitting it to another article would be logical. Zouki08 (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose By and large, these controversies can be covered in detail on the individual '[Country] in the Eurovision Song Contest 2024', with only a summary on this page. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose I am sure the proposal is made with good intentions but fear it would only whitewash the main article by removing the controversies to an article few are likely to visit now that the event is over. Jeppiz (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, and think this is why the controversies of the contest should also be its own article. Each article should cover its own controversies in a quick summary, but we need more space to cover the controversies in much broader detail. It is unlikely that this will be the last we hear about this year's incidents, and we need more space to update it as it all unfolds. Kapitan110295 (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Full spokespersons list and order released

Eurofestival News released the full list of spokespersons (https://www.eurofestivalnews.com/2024/05/11/spokeperson-eurovision-2024-italia-26-mele-rinuncia/) - with Kaarija in there still, despite his later withdrawal Pdhadam (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ABBA Voyage

The article currently says that the Malmö performance of "Waterloo" was preceded by a pre-recorded segment in which the song's original performers, ABBA, discussed their Eurovision experience on the occasion of its 50th anniversary – I don't think this is strictly true. It appears that the show went live(?) to the ABBA Voyage arena in London – it certainly at least showed a crowd in the London arena – and the "ABBAtars" talking about "Waterloo" as part of that show. Kingsif (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. It clearly were cgi versions of the ABBA members.Tvx1 00:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image representing the host city

Stortorget in central Malmö

I wanted to add an image representing the host city, but I cannot add it since I do not have an account and that seems mandatory for this article. So I leave the image here if someone else wants to add it. 2A00:1EB8:C1A7:D2DC:DD4A:F0FC:43BC:5CC3 (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lovely idea, but I don't really see this as something the article needs. I think the image of the host venue is enough. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 04:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-protected edit request on 12 May 2024

We now have a reliable source with details on what happened with Joost Klein and the reporter: [2]https://wiwibloggs.com/2024/05/11/avrotros-disagrees-joost-klein-disqualification-eurovision-2024/281669/ IkiEneng (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is the AVROTROS account of the events. They are not neutral. The EBU has already disputed this account.Tvx1 00:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-protected edit request on 12 May 2024 (Split results)

I made an overview of the split televoting-jury results: [3]https://imgur.com/a/hyCwaB5 IkiEneng (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed results are missing

12 points list is missing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:fe1:8084:3b00:4d2a:77bd:9d64:ff8b (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They can be found here:
https://eurovisionworld.com/eurovision/2024
Someone with edit privileges should update the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.76.62 (talk) 09:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
for the first semi-final as well as the Latvian 12 points in the semi-final. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asteroid08 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Latvian semi-final 12 points are still missing! Asteroid08 (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nemo's final performance.

The starting position of Nemo in the grand final should be written in bold. Newrafal04 (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, got the winner's encore performance video up on YouTube? Just in case to include that on his track's page. VernardoLau (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delay in publishing the Portuguese performance on YouTube

The video was only posted after the votes closed, which generated controversy. Fonte: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZn4-H6JvKU&ab_channel=EurovisionSongContest https://www.escportugal.pt/2024/05/esc2024-atuacao-de-portugal-na-final.html https://www.rtp.pt/noticias/cultura/eurovisao-ebu-protelou-publicacao-de-video-de-iolanda-com-simbolos-da-palestina_v1570890 Mestre Big Brother (talk) 09:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bold country names in results tables.

I feel like there needs to be an explanation as to why Israel, Ukraine, Armenia, Serbia, Moldova and the Czech Republic have their names in bold in the tables detailing which countries have given their 12 points to which other countries. Could somebody please put in a brief explanation or alternatively remove the bolding? 89.246.98.39 (talk) 10:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's countries that awarded both 12 points from the jury and televoting to the same country; not sure why that's not noted — IмSтevan talk 11:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of scare quotes around "genocide"


  • What I think should be changed:

Remove quotes around "genocide":

−
Fred Leone, the didgeridoo player for Australia's performance, had a stylised watermelon painted on his chest in condemnation of the Gaza "genocide".
+
Fred Leone, the didgeridoo player for Australia's performance, had a stylised watermelon painted on his chest in condemnation of the Gaza genocide.
  • Why it should be changed:

Having quotes around "genocide" can be seen as implicitly disagreeing with the classification of the situation in Gaza as a genocide (see Scare quotes). I believe this is not Wikipedia's call to make, and removing the quotes is faithful to how both the primary and secondary sources phrased it. The current phrasing was introduced in revision [4].

I do not know if this change might be too controversial for an edit request, but I am open to discussion.

Vkb123 (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


If the content is (as I believe it clearly should be) moved to a sub-article on controversies, I believe that article title in itself is enough demarcation that the content is sensitive, and so scare quotes wouldn't be needed. Thanks for bringing it up. Kingsif (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Removing the "" around the term takes a side and wades in, neck-deep into a contentious claim and a claim without definition. Genocide has many definitions and there are cultural, societal, legal, etc. Which do you pick and why? Wikivoice cannot make such a claim. Claims of "genocide" are highly POV and disputed. Also these are not 'scare quotes' it shows that the term is used by some as a descriptor but it is not necessarily accurate. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware that these are probably not intended to be scare quotes, but that is how I originally read it, and I reckon that others might read it like that too. That is why I think the current article might risk POV, but I now realise that simply removing the quotes would just flip the POV in the other direction.
    As an alternative, what if it said "had a stylised watermelon painted on his chest to call against genocide in Gaza"? This is almost the exact phrasing used by the secondary source, and in my eyes does not seem to imply that Wikipedia recognises or disputes the Gaza situation as a genocide.
    As another alternative, we could expand the quotation so that it is not just that single word. I cannot find a suitable small but descriptive quote to use, and quoting a large section of the Instagram post feels like undue focus. Plus, it's not written in very encyclopaedic language (if that's a relevant concern, which I'm not sure it is). Vkb123 (talk) 11:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative - Just refrain from using the word 'genocide' in this context. There is no concensus about whether the situation in Gaza qualifies as genocide and it is not up to Wikipedia to decide on this. There are plenty of other words you can use, such as the more neutral word 'conflict'. Hhl95 (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Leone was protesting what he considers genocide, and if Wikipedia is covering it at all, WP then has the duty to accurately explain what the issue/controversy was. It would not be neutral to use a generic term that does not reflect what Leone's protest was. Wikipedia is not deciding anything - the purpose of the quotation marks.
    I think the suggestion of expanding what is quoted is the best solution. As quoting one word can appear sarcastic and like Wikipedia is deriding Leone's view, while not using quotation marks is inappropriate use of wikivoice, using a longer quote would prevent either from being a concern. Using sourced wording also prevents misinterpretation from Wikipedia restatement. Kingsif (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What individual acts consider genocide does not mean Wikipedia goes that is genocide. Additionally Wikipedia is not here ‘to cover everything’ that is for news companies and not an encyclopaedia. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, and that's why there's quotation marks. Wikipedia accurately explaining what Leone's action was for, is not agreeing with him, and I never suggested that, so I don't know what your reply is for - unless that wasn't understood.
    Though I don't know how I can explain it better: Leone's act was to protest genocide, as he sees it. It was not to protest conflict. Wikipedia would be introducing inaccuracy (at least) - for no other reason than avoiding a word we could just attribute - if we followed the suggestion to say conflict. (The 'at least' is referring to the fact that readers who go to the source would see that Leone wasn't protesting conflict, but what he sees as genocide, and could interpret WP avoiding the word as WP taking a side.)
    So, best to use an extended quote. Kingsif (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s promoting their opinion above others which is undue weight and undue bias. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was the only thing being written about, I would agree, but saying (effectively) "one of the protest actions was this guy painting his chest which he did so because he thinks X", in the middle of a list of four things, is not undue weight or undue bias. I, genuinely, encourage you to look at it in the context it's in. Wikipedia is not presenting his view either as correct or more important than others. Saying that a guy did X because he believes Y is not, in this instance, giving undue weight to what he believes.
    The text has now been edited to in condemnation of the perceived genocide, anyway. But...
    I've just edited the section to try and make it more readable and NPOV. I debated removing this part entirely, not for any NPOV concerns, but simply because I can only see the one source for it (and it's Eurovoix, which almost indiscriminately covers everything at Eurovision), so whether it's important enough for inclusion is a question. This also comes as I am thinking of rewriting a more generic (shorter) "There were numerous actions by other participating acts in protest", because I was going to move out the Belgian union and the opening act stuff, and Bambie Thug has other involvements. Which would only leave Leone, and again, on its own it would be inappropriate.
    I also think the section warrants a mention of the overwhelming public vote for Israel, but we're on clean-up at the moment. Kingsif (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a slippery road to go on. It is not up to us to interpret the televote score and to phrase it as support for Israel outside Eurovision. Every year there is plenty to say and interpret about the voting and I think we should just refrain from that, unless there are explicit and sourced voting declarations. Hhl95 (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record: the word 'conflict' was not a suggestion, it was an example. It was not intended to make this a choice between 'genocide' or 'conflict'. Like I wrote, there are plenty of words you could use, or it could be phrased differently, for example by referring to the victims. My proposal is just to remove the word 'genocide' and to use your imagination for a less contested way to phrase it. There's no need to use the literal words that Leone used. Hhl95 (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree just don’t include the word or section at all. The word is far too loaded, and POV. Best just don’t use it. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't see this - given my (above mentioned) apprehensions about including it on relevance, I will take this as small consensus to remove that example. Kingsif (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • "At Saturday night’s final, Portuguese entrant iolanda appeared onstage with nails painted with the pattern of a kaffiyeh during her performance of “Grito.”" [5]
  • "Loreen will not hand over the trophy to Eden Golan in case of Israel’s victory on Eurovision 2024" [6]
  • "dropped the microphone-shaped glass trophy, injuring their thumb in the process." [7]

Galzigler (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first bullet: "The EBU has not uploaded Portugal’s performance to the official YouTube channel." [8] Galzigler (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed voting results tables

Previous Eurovision Contest pages have detailed voting results tables. Will this years article have them too, or isn't the information available? TrogWoolley (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the detailed results tables for semi-final 2 and the final are available. you can go see them at eurovisionworld.com and eurovision.tv
semi-final 1's results are unavailable at the moment, due to a glitch at the detailed results of the semi-final 1 website Firsy.mid (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The links are [9] and [10]. If anyone's willing to tussle with the table formatting for it (as seen here), put the table here and I can put it into the article. ji11720 (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article problems identified at ITN

Usually, Eurovision is featured on the Main Page in the ITN box. The nomination has identified some issues that are preventing this article this year from being posted. I know lots of users want to add content, but it's probably best that the problems are addressed first.

ITN comments have so far noted:

  1. Some parts lacking sources
    1. Detailed results mentioned explicitly
  2. Article is too long to navigate easily
    1. Some sections should be forked off
    2. Postcards table, voting list, spokespersons could be excessive trivia
  3. Concerns with the controversies section

If sources can be added, that would be helpful.

I think most forks (i.e. splits) should be discussed, which could take some time - while I, and I'm sure many other users, am experienced in splitting content and BOLD guidelines, the main sections that are candidates for being split off seem to be Broadcasters and Controversies. There's already a discussion above (#New article) about splitting off the latter, so that should be resolved some way or another (even a no consensus, do whatever) before content is moved. And in terms of broadcasters, since that's such an integral part of the competition, it would seem counterintuitive to not have some kind of list at the main article. (Similar with votes).

However, I think it is an easy solution to move the postcards information to the various country sub-articles. Kingsif (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal: Grand Final content

I don't think this has ever been done before, but in terms of navigating the article, which is very long, it seems clear it would be beneficial to split it. The first split I think should be made - that which I think would be best overall - is to create an article on the grand final itself as an event, and of course then to split out the content that pertains only to the grand final. Kingsif (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Survey

  • Remove the 'Notes' column in the Bidding phase table. Use the Notes section further down the article if explanations are needed.
  • Remove the list of participants table. They are already integrated in the result tables. All those extra details such as the broadcasters and songwriters can be covered in the country article or song article and don't need to be covered in the general event article. The broadcasters are already covered in the Broadcasts section anyways. So the list of participants table basically only exists to feature the songwriters and is therefore redundant. If we really want to feature the songwriters on this page, I suggest using the format of the German event article.
  • Remove the postcards table. I think we could do with a short explanation of the concept of this year's postcards. Perhaps alternatively, every country page could feature a more detailed section about that country's postcard.
  • Remove the OGAE voting section. This is irrelevant to the official Contest and it gives the OGAE voting an importance that it does not have. The Contest already comprises a much larger public vote itself, so the OGAE voting really doesn't represent anything. Hhl95 (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhl95 You may go to WikiProject Eurovision if you want to initiate discussions on the wider formatting of the contest year pages - more experienced editors with expertise on the contest will be willing to discuss further Pdhadam (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did realise that I probably suggested things that have been deliberated before. But we are discussing the length of the article here as a problem, so these are suggestions to shorten the article(s). Perhaps concensus can be reached here already. Hhl95 (talk) 08:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. We need the participants tables — IмSтevan talk 09:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the added value of the participants table if the participants are already covered in the results table? Hhl95 (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2024

In "Incidents and controversies" / "Spokesperson changes", change "were announced by Österdahl" to "were announced by Österdahl, who was heavily booed".

In the "Participating countries" chart, change the Netherlands' language cell from "Dutch" to "Dutch, German (two verses), Italian (two verses), English (two verses and some words), French, Spanish (some words)" Lallamaflamenca (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done I've added a bit more to the spokesperson section, but we need a WP:RS for Österdahl being booed. As for the song languages, I recall that there is some WP standard for what language is listed (perhaps a certain %age of the song sung in it) - but again, it would need a source. The current source, of course showing various lines in other languages, is the Eurovision website. So you might be better raising the question at the Eurovision project talkpage, on when non-main languages are to be included and what sourcing would be required. Kingsif (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israel controversies

The section can be reduced to a single paragraph, as shown in this edit. This article isn't the main article for the controversies involving Israel, so WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE can be applied and most of the content transferred to Israel in the Eurovision Song Contest 2024. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've added links to what is already at the Israel article in the paragraph that's already there. Sure. Why not. If it keeps the topic together and makes the main article more manageable, people will still try to add things but signposting should help. Kingsif (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I can see that and it's an improvement. My point is that the three subsections beneath the opening paragraph can be removed, as that detailed information should be in the 'Israel in Eurovision 2024' article. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead second para first sentence

I propose changing the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead from:

Thirty-seven countries participated in the contest, with Luxembourg competing for the first time since 1993, while Romania opted not to participate after doing so the previous year.

to

Thirty-seven countries participated in the contest, the same number as in 2023. Romania did not return, however, Luxembourg competed for the first time since 1993.

The second version flows better, and also includes the fact that the number of competing countries has remained stable from 2023. @User:Pdhadam has reverted the change when I've tried to insert it into the article, hence opening a discussion to discuss what their objection might be. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A.D.Hope That is because "the same number as [previous year]" hasn't really been included as a line for previous years' articles. Returning countries are also often mentioned first before non-returns/withdrawals Pdhadam (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter that the line hasn't been included in previous articles, really. It wouldn't be for many, because the number of participating countries fluctuates.
The order of Luxembourg and Romania doesn't much matter, but 'while Romania' reads somewhat awkwardly. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A.D.Hope The aim (at least in my view, although there are other editors who may or may not agree) is to achieve consistency between contest year pages, in particular the recent years, and deviating too much from the established lead wording would fail to do so. Pdhadam (talk) 09:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship of Portuguese acting

Controversies of the 2024 Eurovision Song Contest insert Censorship of Portuguese performance on social networks due to Palestinian symbols on nails. "RTP’s President, Nicolau Santos said today that the broadcaster awaits "thorough" answers about the delay in posting Iolanda's performance during the #Eurovision final." Broadcaster RTP will present a formal protest to the EBU in case foul play is detected by the delayed upload of iolanda’s performance Danopt (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2024 (2)

Requesting pronoun for Nemo be corrected in section ‎Non-binary pride flag ban, from:

The singer, who identifies as non-binary, admitted to breaking the rules by smuggling one in in protest, which he displayed in the Green Room.

To:

The singer, who identifies as non-binary, admitted to breaking the rules by smuggling one in in protest, which they displayed in the Green Room.

GarethPW (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ji11720 (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of countries that called for Gaza ceasefire

Addition of Switzerland among countries that called for ceasefire in Gaza as is listed among the nations that have done so in source 359 used in the paragraph.[1]

Ahead of the contest, in March 2024, an open letter was released by various participants. While not mentioning Israel's participation in the contest, the entrants for Ireland, Norway, Portugal, San Marino,

[Switzerland, ] <===

Belgium, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Lithuania, and Finland called for "an immediate and lasting ceasefire" in Gaza, as well as the return of war hostages.[341][359] YhtomitosGeometryDash (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done 「HypeBoy」TALK 10:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1], additional text.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2024

The section regarding allegations of harassment by the Israeli delegation towards the Irish, Portuguese, Greek, Dutch, Spanish and Swiss delegations and journalists is missing large swaths of necessary information, especially surrounding the removal of a stylist working with the Israeli delegation and the complaints sent by the Spanish journalists working there.

Additionally, there is no information regarding the controversy regarding the EBU's decision to not use footage from the final performance of Portugal's song in official materials and during portions of the broadcast, and the Portuguese artist's nails, which were decorated with pro-Palestinian imagery.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4] Whitneyahn (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/juanmafdez/status/1788972031310008504?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1788972031310008504%7Ctwgr%5E395d5765f1bda9182e2bb7f94004bfa4725dc1bd%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newarab.com%2Fnews%2Fwas-dutch-eurovision-contestant-dropped-over-israel-tension
  2. ^ https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/spain-speaks-out-eurovision-shambles-32783717
  3. ^ https://www.ynetnews.com/culture/article/sjqdf11pga
  4. ^ https://eurovisionfun.com/en/2024/05/israel-stylist-kicked-out-of-eurovision-venue-for-filming-contestant/

Detailed results

The detailed results of the final can be copied from my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alex1/sandbox Alex1 (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&oldid=1223631076"