Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012

the article on the norwegian participation needs work

the website about the norwegian selection doesnt say anything about how the selection will be. that might still be under discussion. therefore the part about 21 song going to the semi finals should be removed. for all i know they might increase the number again. they increased it from 18 to 21. they could increase it further to 24. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.86.142 (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

References

Please avoid using www.oikotimes.com as a source. They are not reliable. Use www.esctoday.com or www.eurovision.tv instead. Thanks! Porcina (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Oikotimes.com is a little bit better than Esctoday.com! CoolAbc (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Eurovision/Archive_4#RfC_on_reliable_sources_for_Eurovision_articles -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

ESCTODAY.com reports that a newspaper confirmed Israelic participation. Is that a reliable source? CoolAbc (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it should be. CT Cooper · talk 17:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect use of cite web

Unfortunately it appears that {{Cite web}} is not being correctly used in the article. The two main noticeable issues are:

• The accessdate= parameter is for the date when you (the editor) accesses the article/news story. This is so a date is recorded for when the link was working. It is not for the date of publication, which uses the date= parameter.
• The language= parameter is only for content that is not in English. Please do not put "language=English".

I am going to go through the article and correct these errors now. While mistakes are fixable, please read the documentation at Template:Cite web if you are unsure about how to use the template. CT Cooper · talk 16:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA CONFIRMS!

This is a article from oikotimes >>>

http://www.oikotimes.com/eurovision/2011/08/09/bhrt-asks-your-opinion-for-2012/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.11.73.143 (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless the "BH Eurosong page" is run for the broadcaster or the EBU, then this is not a confirmation of participation, since any fansite could run a poll on 2012 just on the assumption that Bosina and Herzegovina will participate. While significant leeway is often given on sources confirming participation, anything less than "X country will participate in the 2012 Eurovision Song Contest", or paraphrasing of that, is not ideal. CT Cooper · talk 18:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Italy and San Marino

http://esfmagazine.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/italie-en-san-marino-in-2012-weer-van-de-partij/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.216.218 (talk) 12:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I have translated the article and while it appears to be a confirmation, the website is a WordPress blog which does not exactly indicate reliability. CT Cooper · talk 13:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I also have a link in Russian that tells Italy and San Marino confirmed. This source is pretty serious.

http://www.1news.az/bomond/eurovision/20110810042625807.html

I hope it helps.--NovaSkola (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, it helps alright. There appears to be a long list of confirmed participants at the end of that article as well, which I will try and add to the article now. CT Cooper · talk 14:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

map changes, please

Turkey needs to be removed from the map and Romania added.74.131.99.14 (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate my request that the map be updated to reflect the fact that there are 29 confirmed participants in ESC 2012.74.131.99.14 (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately per below not all editors accept that there are twenty-nine confirmed participants, and the article is currently in the eighteen confirmed participants version. CT Cooper · talk 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

But the map doesn't even reflect the shorter list, as Spain and Romania are not present. 74.131.99.14 (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That's true, but updating svg maps is not my area. You might want to ask AxG (talk · contribs) or Sims2aholic8 (talk · contribs) directly, who usually update the map. CT Cooper · talk 21:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Italy NOT CONFIRMED!!!

RAI Have not yet confirmed participation. THe participation at Ebu will be dicuss only in december. Source: I know Nicola Caligiore, the Head of the delegation of Italy, he told me that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emanuele75 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, firstly posting in all caps is not necessary and is considered to be shouting. Secondly, please post new sections at the bottom of the page. The Azerbaijani source is clear on Italy's intent to participate in 2012, even if the final decision on all participants will be made in December. I'm afraid Wikipedia functions using published sources and word of mouth cannot hold much sway here. CT Cooper · talk 21:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

So, a source taken from I don't know what is more important than the word of the head of delegation...I'm astonished. Rai tv in this time have not discussed 2012 partecipation because director and managers are changed and more of them don't like the result of tv share in 2011. Speaking with Caligiore he says me that Italy can return but this will be a difficult struggle to fight also because 2012 edition will be in Azerbaijan. Rai Internaional wants Italy on Esc 2012 so they will make all the efforts to do that but for the moment Rai managers don't want to speak about esc. Thhey considered a Flop the edition 2011... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emanuele75 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Azerbaijani source is from a reliable news site, and barring not being in English, is an ideal source to use to confirm participation given that it explicitly states that Italy is intending to participate in 2012. Yes maybe the final decision will be taken later - though that can be said for all countries, which are free to withdraw before the deadline. I'm afraid editors need to see this from Wikipedia's point of view - anyone can come onto this talk page and claim they have spoken with someone who is the head of the delegation, but unless there is proof it cannot be given much consideration. Policy is very clear on this point:

“ The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. ” — Wikipedia:Verifiability

An additional issue here is the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which states Wikipedia cannot claim somebody said something without high quality reliable sources. Please read both that policy, and Wikipedia:Verfiability, thoroughly. CT Cooper · talk 13:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

San Marino have confirmed participation at ESC 2012, according to Oikotimes.com - see this link http://www.oikotimes.com/v2/index.php?file=articles&id=8922. Also Oikotimes reported in another article that in the event that a non-big 5 nation wins the contest, and as Italy insisted to continue participation for many years to come, then the grand final shall consist of 26 nations and not 25 - see this link http://www.oikotimes.com/eurovision/2011/05/12/eurovision-2012-on-may-26/ . This shows that RAI have informed the EBU that they are staying in the contest for at least a few more years. 80.192.226.205 (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Look at this Italian source: http://www.eurofestival.ws/2011/08/11/ancora-non-confermate-le-partecipazioni-di-italia-e-san-marino-allesc-2012/. It clearly says that Anselmi (member of the Sammarinese delegation for ESC 2011) has been interviewed about ESC, but he also said that his words were misunderstood and there is still nothing definite about next year's Sammarinese participation. No official words about Italian participation, but I think this should be at least a hint about how unreliable Azeri media are right now. The website is one of the few Italian ones talking about ESC and, in my experience, it proved to be quite reliable about last ESC --SimoneMLK (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, Oikotimes. Is the site that last january totally invented an interview with Eddy Anselmi (Haed of pres of San Marino) and totally invented two "true" titles of the song.. very reliable --Emanuele75 (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The current article isn't using Oikotimes on Italy. In any case, at worst Oikotimes is no better than word of mouth. CT Cooper · talk 16:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but after reading the website to which SimoneMLK shared the link to, it looks very much like a "blogger" fansite. And whenever a "follower" to the blog posts a comment, a user with the same name SimoneMLK appears to post an answered reply as if they are a moderator to the blog. Isn't using self-published material as a source against Wikipedia's policies of verifiability? I'm sure I read something somewhere about it being prohibited to use self-publishing material. 80.192.226.205 (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Self-published material is frequently an issue with content in Eurovision articles. It is not allowed at all for material about living people unless the living person being discussed authored it, per WP:BLPSPS. Self-published material elsewhere is also largely not acceptable, though the rules are a little more relaxed, per WP:SPS. CT Cooper · talk 18:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not a moderator, just a simple user: and I use this nickname on many websites (different language version of wikipedia, ESC websites, forums and so on). "Blog" is just a format, its contents can be less or more reliable. EscToday is a blog, too: short articles everyone can reply to. Does that make it less reliable? It does not seem so. The website I linked above is a good, independent website, just like EscToday, but on a smaller scale, covering news mostly about Italy and San Marino (being based in Italy). Its articles can be commented by anyone, including me. Not that I have much choice: in Italy media do not care about ESC and that website is pretty much the only good website we have, which, as I write above, proved to be very reliable with Italian/Sammarinese news. If having a "blog format" makes it unreliable, so stop using Oikotimes and EscToday. Strictly speaking, even the Eurovision.tv news section is a blog: what about that? --SimoneMLK (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Eurovision.tv is the official website for Eurovision, created by the EBU, so that site isn't a blogsite as such. As for ESCToday.com, they used "sourced material" in their articles, and lately seem to be working closely alongside the EBU and national broadcasters, since a former editor of ESCToday, Sieste Bakker, now works for the EBU itself. So in my opinion, I wouldn't say that ESCToday is a blogsite either. Oikotimes on the other hand, have published articles quoting and backing them up with "sourced material", and yet they appear to have articles published by members of the page too, which would seem to make it an "open-blog" page. 80.192.226.205 (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

news.az is an unreliable source

I edited back to the previous 18 participating countries list because that news.az website should not be used as a reliable source to determine the participating countries as its "references" comes from fan websites and blogspots. As I mention before in this discussion page. We must stick to the EBU-related websites, ESCToday (with EBU references), or the national broadcaster-s webiste to confirm the participants. I hope it stays that way. Tony0106 (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the revert blanket reverted a large number of edits, some of which were unrelated to this issue, which is not appropriate. The addition of the content was also accepted by multiple editors per above and should not have been reverted unilaterally. Furthermore, sorry, I don't accept these claims. I see no evidence that there sources are from unreliable fan sites. This is a news site which is the bread and butter of what is reliable on Wikipedia, per WP:NEWSORG. Unless there is credible evidence showing otherwise they should be considered reliable. There is no requirement to use the EBU or broadcasters directly, secondary sources are perfectly legitimate, in fact Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written using them, per WP:SECONDARY. CT Cooper · talk 08:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Tony is right: an unreliable source was used. At the moment, Italy, San Marino, the Czech Republic and Slovakia have NOT confirmes their presence at ESC 2012.--Ranma25783 (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting for a policy based reason for the removal here and a proper response to my comments above, none has been provided as of yet. I'm not reverting again for the moment, but on the other hand I'm not dropping this. CT Cooper · talk 10:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm with CT Cooper on this one. And I've read the "about our company" section on News.az, it reads as follows...
"News.Az is among the region’s leaders in online news and information delivery.
Updated 24 hours, seven days a week, News.Az features the latest multimedia technologies, from live video streaming to audio packages and photo galleries.
Our team:
Elnur Baimov – editor@news.az
Anne Thompson – anne.thompson@news.az
Leyla Tagiyeva – leyla@news.az
Aliyah Fridman – aliyah@news.az
Akper Gasanov – akper@news.az
Elmir Aliyev – sport@news.az
So I'd say it is a genuine online English-language newspaper from Azerbaijan, . 80.192.226.205 (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

A lot of websites will praise themselves, but having a good editorial team is usually the hallmark of reliability in sources, and I agree with your conclusion that they are a legitimate news site of Azerbaijan that offers a wide variety of news including weather reports - meaning they are reliable per WP:NEWSORG. I also used 1news.az which is not in English, but if anything is even more reliable since they appear to be a TV news station. I think many editors, particularly those who don't edit Eurovision articles, will find the current situation difficult to understand, given that there are sources in the article at the moment of more questionable reliability than these ones. CT Cooper · talk 21:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

With that agreed conclusion then, wouldn't be best to revert everything back to how it was? Although I'm not fussed either way in all honesty. Also, another Azeri newsite, Today,az has just reported that Montenegro are looking into a return to ESC 2012 - http://www.today.az/news/entertainment/92428.html . 80.192.226.205 (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I originally reverted Tony0106 (talk · contribs) this morning (UTC/GMT) for a lack of a solid policy based reason for the removal of sourced content, but I myself was reverted by Ranma25783 (talk · contribs), with the user saying "Tony is right", but he/she did not respond to any of the points I raised or otherwise justify their position. I decided to not to make any more reverts today to avoid an edit war, but on the other hand I was not going to drop this. If there are no clear policy based reasons for the removal of this content presented by tomorrow morning (UTC/GMT) by any editor then I will consider putting all the content back as it was with twenty-nine confirmed participants. I'm not too fussed either given that sooner or later other sources will confirm the missing countries, though I am still concerned that this may set a bad precedent outside policy that will cause problems in future articles. CT Cooper · talk 21:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue here because people will always find a way to make this blog entries legitimate. That is why the only thing I'm going to suggest here is that we must stick from official confirmations by the EBU or the broadcaster's website. On the other hand CT Cooper you've already started an edit war it doesn't matter if you edit the page tomorrow or within 2 days. I'd also like to ask you if the Czech Republic has confirmed their return. Why no other website (than news.az) have expressed anything about it? An eurovision-based website? the EBU? why CT, Czech's national broadcaster, have not say anything about this issue? Anyhow as I mention before my suggestion is to add information only coming from the EBU or the broadcasters' websites. Please discuss. Tony0106 (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Disputing someone's position is not edit warring; this is a collaborative project and asking for users to justify their actions is not unreasonable. Also, may I point out that it takes two to edit war. Please note that there are two different news sites being discussed here with similar names, both of which have overlapped in what countries they confirm, these being News.az and 1news.az, neither of which are blogs by any definition.

As for the suggestion of only using the EBU and the broadcasters for confirmation, or any other source which is close to the EBU, this is effectively saying we should only use primary sources rather than secondary sources. The main problem with this idea is that it it is not backed by policy, in fact it can be argued that contradicts it. As I said earlier, WP:SECONDARY makes clear that encyclopedic articles are supposed to be written based on secondary sources, and while primary sources can be used, secondary sources should be in the majority. It would be wrong to write an article about a company using only primary sources from that company, and it is equally wrong to write Eurovision articles only using sources from the EBU. I agree that there are some cases in which we should be more cautious on the sources, but banning legitimate news sites because they are not Eurovision sites contradicts WP:NEWSORG, and does not make a great deal of sense, given that reliability is not measured on how close a source is to the topic. I note that no justification has yet been provided about how this proposal follows policy, a major hole in the case for it that needs to be addressed by anyone who supports it.

On your point that other websites have not confirmed these countries, there could be many different explanations for this. Broadcasters do not need to publicly announce that they are planning to participate, and there has been at least anecdotal evidence from previous years that they sometimes don't. It was claimed earlier that the news site are using "fan websites and blogspots", but no evidence of this has been provided, and I think that is unlikely. More likely the news sites are privately talking to the broadcasters themselves, perhaps like the blogs which are also saying that these countries are confirmed. The reason use of the news sites is appropriate over blogs is because we know they have an editorial team and do pay some attention to factual accuracy. Yes news sites are not perfect, and do not meet academic standards, but they are reliable enough for Wikipedia per WP:NEWSORG. CT Cooper · talk 10:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I propose that this mater should be taken to some sort of "open" discussion, and see what other editors think about it, in order to resolve this in a peaceful and diplomatic manner. And in such event, I would be happy to join Wikipedia, by creating a profile, so that I may take part in the tribunal as a mediator, willing to see all sides of this case. 80.192.226.205 (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I have now joined wikipedia, and created my own user page, for the purpose of participating in any dispute cases that may need to be taken in order to resolve this matter peacefully. Wesley Mouse (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for registering. I also hope to resolve this peacefully, and that is why I am continuing to engage in the discussion until we reach an agreement. Thank you also for your offer to act as a mediator, the only problem is though that you have already stated a position in the dispute, which may mean that other users won't accept you in a mediator role. If discussion fails to resolve the issue, there are informal mediation venues available on Wikipedia such as the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, in which case a mediator will randomly be assigned. For other disputes, they are always looking for new mediators. CT Cooper · talk 15:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind welcome CT Cooper (talk · contribs), and also for your invitation to join the Wikiproject for Eurovision. I have accordingly accepted your invited and added my name to the list of active users, as per guidance. And of course, I agree with your point on mediating, as I have already stated a "side" within this dispute, it would be reckless of me to act as mediator in the event of a tribunal happening. If there is anything however that I may be of assistance with, then please don't hesitate to leave me a message via my talk page. Wesley Mouse (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to raise a serious and possibly valid point, based on what Tony0106 has come out with, stating that News.az and other "blog" sites shouldn't be used as sourced material, including Oikotimes, for this article, to which he has reverted everything back to the "18 countries". Has Tony not noticed the references section, to the current article!? The following websites to which Tony states are "blog sites and unreliable, have been used; Pravda.ru; anspress.com; abc.az; news.az; Eurovision-2012.com; 1news.az; Oikotimes; Today.az; and Gün.Az. So why is it that he insists that the article HAD to be reverted due to these sites being unreliable, but yet leaves a large chunk of the article still including them? The article should either allow these sites to be used throughout, or not at all. If not at all, then a full removal of any piece of context that uses these sites should be done. Wesley Mouse (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, it's time to enter in this talk also for the fact that was a position of mine against things wikipedia says on esc 2012 that gave origin to that. I think in this case primary sources must have to be the first choose. As for the secondary ones, it's ok you can use them (also italian newsblog http://news.eurofestival.ws is a secondary one), but I think in necessary to take an effort to use the one of single country. Danish sites for Denmrk in ex. Italian sites for Italy and San Marino and so on. This because each single country have a particular situation, News.az is a reliable source for azeri news on esc but the problem, is that he took news from other countries form variouas sources. Example. A dutch blog made interwiew with San Marino head of press speaking of Italy but misunderstood Anselmi's words (or forced them, who can says this?. News.az didn't verify news towards an italian source but took that as good. Result: italian fans wrote a lot of mails to sites and blogs asking more about "the confirmed Italian ans sammarinese partecipation", and also to the HOD. But news was not true and sites had to publish a post to say this. http://www.eurofestival.ws/2011/08/11/ancora-non-confermate-le-partecipazioni-di-italia-e-san-marino-allesc-2012/

This is what can happen when a site of a country publish a news about another country take that from again another country's site. That can have misunderstood something... --Emanuele75 (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

PS Please. Don't consider Oikotimes a reliable source. More than one time the site invented news.

Firstly, I am going to re-emphasise the point that policy is clear that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on secondary sources, per WP:SECONDARY, and that is not going to change regardless of what happens here. Officially, at least an article is not allowed to exist without secondary sourcing. It is also clear that news sites are by default considered reliable, per WP:NEWSORG. Note that reliable doesn't mean perfect, and that news organisations certainly aren't as reliable as some other sources such as scientific journals. Primary sources are allowed, and we could be more selective on the choice of sources, but anything along the lines of "no secondary sources" is not going to be compatible with policy. Policy is also clear that sources must be published, per Wikipedia:Verifiability, regardless of if they are primary or secondary. Some sources, such as editor's word of mouth, are never going to acceptable as a source on Wikipedia, and again that is not going to change regardless of what happens here. There seems to be a general misconception repeatedly floating in these kind of discussions that having Eurovision articles follow policy is optional, well I'm afraid it isn't.

However, I would accept that az.news and 1az.news (there are two websites being discussed here) may not be reliable for Eurovision content if there is substantial evidence showing this, particularly given that the latter source appears to be a TV station, which are part of the bread and butter of what is considered reliable on Wikipedia. General word of mouth isn't going to be enough. As for the Italian article, well I don't speak Italian and it doesn't translate that well. However in any case, the reliability of that site should also be scrutinised, and I count twenty countries confirmed in that article, not eighteen as stated in the current article. Using a potentially unreliable source as evidence that a typically reliable source is unreliable could be problematic.

I somewhat agree with the opinion that Oikotimes is not reliable, and I have stated that position before, but the fact is that it has been used for years with little challenge, which makes it rather bizarre that a proper news site has been subject to so much controversy. As Wesley Mouse (talk · contribs) points out, Oikotimes and a lot of other questionable sources are in the article right now, a situation which has left other editors confused as well. CT Cooper · talk 15:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In response to Emanuele75, I haven't stated that Oikotimes should or shouldn't be used a reliable source, I merely (as well as clearly) pointed out that IF Tony insists that sources from only EBU or Official Broadcaster should be used in this article, then why is it that he has removed some of the sites that are "blogs" by reverting the article from 29 to 18 countries, but still left over 70% of the article still intact with the very same websites? A few of which are OIKOTIMES and NEWS.AZ - the very same sites to which he says shouldn't be used. If this article has to be strictly based on only EBU and National Broadcaster sourced information, then the entire article needs to be reviewed, and remove any such context that is using this sites. If, on the other hand, Tony feels that the article as it stands is perfectly fine, then he is basically contradicting his own reasons behind these sites, in allowing them to be use in one circumstance, but not in others. Like an old proverb states, "what is good for the goose, is good for the gander". Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If OIKOTIMES isn't to be relied upon as a reasonable source, then the following details needs to be removed from the article...
* Date of Cyprus national final
* Hungary confirmation
* Portugal possible withdrawal.

If news.az is an unreliable site, then the following needs to be removed...
* National park to be extended
* Ticket sales start November
* Azerbaijan already preparing to host
* Belarus confirmation
* Morocco possible return.

Now if you feel those segments are OK, then the previous revert needs to be annulled, and put back the details about there being 29 nations. It needs to be one way or another when it comes to these sites. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarification is clearly needed from both Tony0106 (talk · contribs) and Ranma25783 (talk · contribs) on what they consider to be unreliable, why sources they object to are/were still present in the article they reverted to, and how their position is in line with policies and guidelines such as WP:V and WP:IRS - the latter of which I have been asking for for a while. A response needs to be forthcoming, otherwise it will be difficult to respect the status quo. CT Cooper · talk 11:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the sources should be removed until they're confirmed as reliable, as my previous discussion has been noted previously it's very confusing for the editors who don't check talk pages. Afro (Talk) 20:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless clarification is given within the next few days from the users that contested the sources in the first place, then all the sources are likely to be restored, since the current situation clearly makes little sense. CT Cooper · talk 10:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I second CT Coopers proposal to restore all sources within the next few days, if the users don't provide clarification to their contest against the sources being used in the first place. Wesley Mouse (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I said we should only use EBU websites for confirmation of participation. I mentioned before in another discussion topic, which appearently was removed, that it was also OK to use confirmation coming from websites from the participating countries as well as other well known independent Eurovision related websites such as ESCToday.com or ESCDaily.com for instance. The reason I removed that 29 participating list is because the source provided from news.az only showed a random list of participating countries in which they never mention where they got the information from. News.az might be a well-known and respectable Azerbaijani news agency (but that doesn't really matter even Associated Press have made up stories) but their list of participating countries for the Eurovision Song Contest is nonsense. If anybody in here is somehow related to that news agency then please provide the source that told you Czech Republic was returning and that Italy and San Marino are staying for next year. On the other hand for those sources about Azerbaijan hosting and venues that can be consider reliable as they must have a team working for the ESC 2012 but trust they don't manage participations, the EBU does. About the possible return from Morocco, well they are in a "rumour" section so I think they "can" stay even though I would like to remove it as well, the same goes for Portugal with oikotimes. The Cypriot date was added after I reverted the changes I will remove it as well because CyCB hasn't say anything about how the songs will be selected. Anyways those are my arguments for now I say we should keep on discussing on this topic.189.204.69.27 (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, whoever you are please log-in. Old discussion is archived, see Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012/Archive 1. The Associated Press are considered reliable on Wikipedia's standards; I have seen no credible evidence that they have "made-up stories" nor that the list on the Azeri news site is "random". Again, as I said earlier, reliable does not mean perfect, but accurate enough for Wikipedia's standards. The fact that a news site doesn't list its sources doesn't seem very relevant to me, since if they are reliable they don't need to, and many such as the BBC, do not.

There is no agreement that ESCDaily is reliable, it is only tolerated, and the same goes for Oikotimes. As for Morocco and Portugal, well it really is all or nothing, if the source is unreliable it shouldn't be given coverage at all in the article per WP:V. This also applies to the Azeri news sites, it is either reliable for Eurovision related content, or it isn't. I don't think it is appropriate for editors to pick-and-choose what content from sources they choose to believe, given that such actions are unencyclopaedic and violate the spirit of WP:NPOV, particularly when it involves allegations without evidence. If the Azeri news site is unreliable, all content related to it should be removed, though I remain far from convinced that it is unreliable.

It's fine that you want to discussing this topic, but to be frank it is rather pointless if questions related to policy are not going to be answered. I'm still waiting for an explanation on how this position is compatible with WP:SECONDARY and WP:NEWSORG, after asking for it many times throughout this discussion. In content discussions, including this one, an argument is meaningless without any justification for how it fits in with policies and guidelines. There has not been a single reference to any policy or guideline in this discussion by any user who backs the position of removing Azeri news sits as sources, a pretty big hole in the argument as far as I'm concerned. CT Cooper · talk 10:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I say that the removed content is put back, and the article fully protected, until evidence to prove that News.az is an unreliable source. Wesley Mouse (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

News.Az has reported now that forty-one countries have confirmed participation (http://www.news.az/articles/42627). It gets this info from a site called Gun.Az. I think it's Gun.Az that we should be questioning as to if it's reliable.81.86.156.19 (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Gun.az seems to be another news site, though I don't know that much about it at this point. While in that one article they cite Gun.az, the previous articles might have been sourced from elsewhere. CT Cooper · talk 16:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I could re-add the content and fully protect the article right now, but I'm now allowed to use the administrative tools in a content dispute in which I am involved in per WP:UNINVOLVED, and in any case administrators are not allowed to use page protection in order to resolve content disputes in their favour per the Wikipedia:Protection policy. This page may be protected by another admin if there is persistent edit warring, but I would like to avoid that situation. If this discussion goes round in circles, then I may request mediation at WP:MEDCAB, failing that it will resolve itself when the EBU releases the participants list, though only temporarily, as deeper divisions over the reliability of sources will remain.

I have in the meantime removed Montenegro and Czech Republic per the WP:V "all or nothing" issue as described above. CT Cooper · talk 16:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Gun.az appears to be a similar site to news.az, in which News.az covers Azeri news in English language, and Gun.az covers the same articles but in Turkish, some of the editors that I mentioned above for News.az, also appear as list of editors for Gun.az. Now I'm not 100% sure if the 2 companies are owned by the same media group. But based on content, and also the layout of both websites, then they could be owned by the same group. Wesley Mouse (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Is Spain confirmed?

This must be a confirmation from Spanish TVE: [1]. They say "TVE has not expressed their thoughts about Falete's proposal or about the way they'll use to select the Spanish entry for 2012." I think that is a confirmation for Spain. What do we think about that? /Hollac16 (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say it most definitely shows that Spain and TVE will be in Baku next May, especially when it an official EBU site such as Eurovision.tv are reporting it. Wesley Mouse (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I would agree that this would pass as a confirmation. CT Cooper · talk 10:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not confirmed, this singer has only been offered, but it does not mean that Spain confirmed their participation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.216.218 (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Usually discussion from the broadcaster or the EBU about the entry is considered enough to confirm participation. There is an argument that can be made that we should only accept explicate statements such as "X country will participate" from reliable sources as a confirmation, per a strict interpretation of WP:NOR, but that would require a wider change in practice. CT Cooper · talk 18:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Spain it's not confirmed!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.216.218 (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Greece

Greece has already confirmed their participation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.216.218 (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

http://www.oikotimes.com/eurovision/2011/08/08/restructure-by-the-end-of-the-month/

Should Cyprus appear green on the map?

The color code for this stage is purple for confirmed participants and green for countries that have already chosen artist, song, or both. Since Cyprus already chosen an entrant, shouldn't it be put green on the map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.208.206 (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it should be green colored.74.131.99.14 (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)