Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012

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)

I would say Gun.az is probably reliable. In any case I am still waiting for a response from Tony et al on the comments I made on other issues from the 17 August, in particular about how their position fits in with policies and guidelines. CT Cooper · talk 12:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh I am sorry. My response was the one coming from 189.204.69.27 (talk) at 03:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC). I did not notice I wasn't logged in. And well CT Cooper you should ask your friends from Gun.az/news.az where did they get all that information on that list of FOURTY-ONE participants. On the other hand if you want to eliminate all the news.az references that would be good as well. I mentioned before that news.az could be used for Azeri-related news but if its "all or nothing" then go ahead. Tony0106 (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like we're still going around in circles here. CT Cooper has constantly asked "for a response from Tony et al on the comments CT Cooper made on other issues from the 17 August, in particular about how Tony's position fits in with policies and guidelines." I feel it is now the appropriate time to take this to mediation at WP:MEDCAB so that we may achieve an overall vote on whether we should or shouldn't be using News.az and Guns.az, especially when there is reasonable evidence to state these websites are not "blogsites", but genunie newsites. Wesley Mouse (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I have a question: If News.Az/Guns.az are genuine newsites why are they the only one website confirming the participation from the Czech Republic? Where did they get that information from? It's interesting how on 10 August they confirmed the participation from Armenia and the following day Armenia's participation went under discussion. Appearently they talked to the head of the Armenian delegation, who by the way said the participats' list was fake, and she denied the confirmation. I mean it cannot be clearer that those lists are fake. I've been following the contest for several years and contributing to the Eurovision wikipages as well by this time of the year, six months ahead of the contest, we always use to have around 20 confirmed participants (usually Western European and Scandinavian countries). The list is always completed by December and they are reporting (as of 17 August) 41 participants? That is just crazy. I am sorry for calling News.az a "blogsite" but that list is obviously fake. They must show the source where they are getting all that information from. Just look what they did with the Armenian participation. They added them to the list and removed it the following day upon request of the Armenian head of delegation? I am sorry but that just cannot be reliable. Sorry. Tony0106 (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, you mention (and I quote) Appearently they talked to the head of the Armenian delegation, who by the way said the participats' list was fake, and she denied the confirmation. You write this as if you have spoken to the Armenian head of delegation personally, in which using such details as a "source" would be going against WP:NOR.

Secondly, you state that News.az and Guns.az MUST name a source in their articles in order for Wikipedia to use them as WP:Reliable. A news organisation isn't obliged to state where they got their information from. You wouldn't find a printed newspaper stating each and every source that they got their details from, they would just print the facts, and keep such information on their computer and/or hard copy records.

Thirdly, and contrary to the there is usually around 20 countries confirmed by this stage (which tends to be the case year after year), we shouldn't also except this trend to continue year after year. Nothing is predictable, and it is possible for there to be 41 confirmed participations at this stage, especially with Azerbaijan promising a "spectacular show". This could be bringing in new interest in former nations, and excitement to current one, hence the high number of confirmations at such an early stage of organising the event. We should always expect the unexpected. However, in the interest of everyone all round, would it not be feasible to have a section to state about these "alleged" confirmations, something along the lines of "according to some Azeri news websites, these nations have also confirmed participation, however there appears to be no details from the EBU nor the respective national broadcasters at this present time." This would be keeping the peace between everyone involved in this current dispute, plus would also settle the argument as to why some parts of the ESC2012 article is allowing sourced information from News.az, whilst other parts of if are not. Wesley Mouse (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Wesley Mouse is right that we are going around in circles here. I am considering a filing a requests at WP:MEDCAB and seeing how it goes, but everyone will need to agree to mediation for it to take place.

The main reason we are going round in circles is clear in my view - legitimate points and questions are being repeatedly sidestepped. From the very beginning, I asked for a policy basis for getting rid of Azerbaijan news sources, and one has not been provided despite the fact I have asked for it over three times in this discussion. On Wikipedia, we decide if something is reliable through using the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources guideline and other pages, and just throwing this out the window in such discussions is never going to be accepted. The persistent refusal to address any policy or guideline issues in this discussion is clearly not accidental, and so that leaves me and others to guess on why it is happening, and the conclusions will not likely work in the favour of those doing it. I have also asked for evidence for many of the allegations made here, such as the claim that the Associated Press make-up stories (which is a very serious accusation to make about a news service), but none have been provided.

I think I need to make clear here that I am not "friends" with any of the Azerbaijani news sites, and if they are found to be unreliable I will not be very unhappy - this discussion is not about "winning" or being proven right or wrong. The main issue I have is the process in which those that argue that Azerbaijani news sites are unreliable have reached their conclusion. For example, it is asserted above that we should reject a source because it is "crazy". This along with other comments and the previous lack of attempt to remove other content from Azerbaijani news sites, tells me that editors are picking and choosing what to believe from sources, something which clearly goes against WP:NPOV, a core policy of this project. We should be deciding what is reliable and what isn't through objective assessment of reliability with WP:IRS, not what we personally choose to believe.

Many other arguments here appear to conflict with policy. The idea that we should only use broadcasters and the EBU direct clearly contradicts WP:SECONDARY, which is part of Wikipedia:No original research, a core policy of this project. While this has been clarified to also using Eurovision sites, this is still an arbitrary idea without any basis in policy. The assumption that comes with this, that news sources are never reliable, clearly contradicts WP:NEWSORG, which says they usually are reliable on factual claims.

As for the arguments specifically on how Azerbaijani news sites are not reliable, they are on the whole unconvincing. Many news organisations make corrections when they make errors, and the fact that these sites do so is arguably evidence of reliability, not the other way round. Even if the news site are perfect, broadcasters can change there minds and often have done after confirming participation - "confirmed" does not mean "final". As for the claims from the Armenian delegation, they may have an opinion but they don't decide what is reliable and what isn't' on Wikipedia, and there is no evidence that they made such comments. Wesley Mouse addresses the other points. CT Cooper · talk 14:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what has been stated by CT and Wesley. Per the linked policies above, we cannot just randomly decide to use only "official" announcements because that is not how things are done on Wikipedia as a whole, not just on Eurovision articles. If the site posts a correction, then we will just update it. If there are contradicting articles, we can discuss which is more reliable and use that one.

Also, I keep seeing news.az referred to as a blog, but what makes it a blog? I don't think that position has been proven. Grk1011 (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh my God. GOD PLEASE PARDON ME FOR HAVING CALLED THE SO RESPECTABLE NEWS.AZ WEBSITE A "BLOGSPOT". IT ISN'T. I AM VERY SORRY. I BEG YOUR PARDON IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, THE SON, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. There you go. Tony0106 (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. First of all I only suggested that we SHOULD use EBU-related websites only to confirm a participant so we don't get into this endless discussion on what is reliable and what isn't. I am not saying WE MUST. I said that would be the best solution. Why? Common sense: If a broadcaster announces its intention to participate or its plans to pick up next years' song is because they are going to compete. But both of you are only saying that it is contradictory to wikipedia policies on secondary sources. I have asked why we don't get other source confirming 41 participants and the response I got is that I should not call news.az a blogspot and why it is against wikipedia policies not using secondary sources. That is the real reason why we are going in circles. And well ok. I am going to remove everything referring to news.az that wasn't actually my intention but neither of both of you are paying attention to my argument. Tony0106 (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sarcastic statements aren't helpful Tony0106, but thank you for acknowledging policy at long last. Your description of what me and others have said bars little relation to what was actually said - re-read again more carefully what I and others said above about how your claims that Azerbiajani news sites are problematic, the last paragraph of my last comment would be a good start. You will find that we have answered all of your points in most cases. As for removing all references to Azerbaijani news sites, well there is clearly no consensus for that action, and the likely result will be increased opposition to your position from other editors who have contributed to the aritcle, but I will leave it for now. CT Cooper · talk 10:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh Jesus. You were the one who asked me why I didn't remove other information from news.az. Now you're telling me that I shouldn't have. I honesty don't know what you want. My question hasn't been answered. I only want to know why the only website on the internet that claims we already have 41 participants is news.az? Nobody has answered that. The only thing you and your partner here had been saying is how genuine the Azerbaijani news website is and the Wikipedia policies on secondary sources. You know what, if all you want is to take over this article and say there are already 41 or 52 confirmed participants for the most spectacular eurovision contest ever done. Go ahead. I will not contribute anymore to this article, then. It's you and your friend against me. But I tell you that list is fake. I surf on Eurovision-related websites everyday and none have confirmed the participation from the Czech Republic, Italy or the Great Britain instead of United Kingdom (I assume now that Northern Ireland is going to compete separately). Tony0106 (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Tony, sorry to correct you here, but CT never instructed you to remove the other information sourced by News.az. Both CT and I pointed out that if you removed half of the article content from News.az, then shouldn't the rest be removed. As you never stated either way, we then said that it needs to be all or nothing. You then insisted that NO Azeri websites should be used as sourcing, and removed ALL content from News.az. However, there are still parts of the article using other Azeri newsites. Also, you state that you browse EVERY Eurovision-related website, and none of the mention about there being 41 confirmed participants. You obviously didn't search ALL of them, as ESCDaily.com published an article on August 17, stating that there are in fact 42 nations confirmed. Their article also states that Iceland has yet to confirm, but if they do, then the total will be 43 nations; 44 if Portugal decide not to withdraw; and 45 if Morocco return. Wesley Mouse (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a long comment, so apologies for that, but there are many points which need addressing here.

Tony, I have let your version of the article stand for almost two weeks to allow for discussion to take place, despite the fact there was never consensus for removal of Azerbaijani news sources in the first place, and there is an argument that there should have been one established before there was any kind of removal. Furthermore, while I thank you for acknowledging some of my points related to policy, the fact remains that it took nearly two weeks to get anywhere in that area, which is far too long, despite me asking over three times. In light of these facts, I am rather baffled by the suggestion that "all [I] want is to take over this article". If you wish to stop contributing that is your decision, but I am not making any apologies for not going along with your opinions here.

I think part of the problem is that there is confusion between three separate issues, all of which I have tried to address, but appear to have been mixed up in some of the responses above.

The first is the idea of what selection of sources we should use. I have indicated several times that WP:SECONDARY requires that articles should mostly (note, not entirely) use secondary sources. This means that the suggestion of only using the EBU and broadcasters direct is not likely to be acceptable. The further idea of only using EBU, broadcasters, and a narrow selection of Eurovision sites, is as I have already said arbitrary, and not supported by policy of guidelines. For example, the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources guideline states per WP:NEWSORG that news organisations are normally reliable, yet this proposal would blanket exclude all non-Eurovision sources including all news sites.

The second issue is over neutrality in determining reliability, and the way reliability has been determined in this discussion in some cases. I pointed out that we should not pick-and-choose what sources we believe based on believability of what they say, and concluded that the argument that we should not use Azeri news sites because we don't believe what they are saying, on its own, may conflict with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. This lead onto the "all or nothing" point, that we either X source is reliable for Eurovision information, or it isn't. I never at any point said I wanted removal of all Azeri news sites from the article.

The third issue is specifically about the reliability of the Azeri news sites (note, there are three different sources being discussed here). It has been established that they are not blogs, but news sites which are normally reliable per WP:NEWSORG (hence the overlap with the first issue). I said I would accept that they were not reliable if there was evidence to support it, but the evidence presented so far has not been convincing, and some allegations have been made which have not been backed-up with evidence. I'm not going through all the claims here, but if there are any I or others have not given a response too, editors are free to point them out here. Wesley Mouse has now responded to your point on other sources not saying what these websites say.

Tony asks what I want. I am flexible, but really there are three main things. Firstly, I want some acceptance that decisions over content are made based on what Wikipedia policies and guidelines say, not, as seems to have happened a lot with Eurovision articles, the personal standards of who is editing the article. This means that when discussing reliability of sources, the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources guideline is read, understood, and respected, and not just thrown out the window. Secondly, I want the Azeri news site sources to be restored based on current evidence, and finally, in the long run I want a wider discussion with as many Eurovision editors as possible, in order to agree which Eurovision sources are reliable and which aren't, again using the WP:IRS. CT Cooper · talk 18:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you notice by any chance the question mark "?" in the ESCDaily article. Have you take your time to look at the comments from the user. Around 16/21 commentators deny this information. Look at this ones:

• ...Woj: "Hahahaha - seriously? Poland and UK for sure haven't confirmed officially their participation. Same goes for most of the countries on the list - no official statements for national broadcasters. It's all rumours." "I know - I've read the article on news.az and laughed my head of. I know that few broadcasters haven't agreed yet on their budgets for 2012. I am waiting for official confirmations from the EBU, no point in getting excited over some rumours." (This is actually very important I didn't remember that by this time of the year broadcasters haven't agreed on this budget".
• Seán: "This is a long list for August"
• Jack ESC: "I WISH THESE WEBSITES WOULD ONLY REPORT THINGS ONCE THEY ARE CONFIRMED!!!!!!!!! I AM TALKING ABOUT .AZs WEBSITES NOT ESCDAILY LOL. BUT WHY MAKE ALL THESE FALSE RUMORS UP AND NOW MONTENEGRO ARE APPARETLY RETURING WTF!!!!!! MONTENEGRO HAVE NOT SAUD ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :("
• NTR: "BS, its august c'mon, normally the rumors of which countries are going to take part come out in december, oh but i forgot that the contest will be in Azerbaijan and no one wants to miss the oportunity to be on the land of fire so the confirmed their participation early this year. Its pretty fun to see all this, if you are a eurovision fan you know this is false like other news from those websites."

That's all I need to say now. but welll if you want to confirm all those 41 or 45 participants then go ahead. I am not discussing anymore here. And I won't read any further comments from CT Cooper either. Bye to all. Tony0106 (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why you are asking questions if you don't want to discuss this any more. I took the time to respond to your points, but if you don't want to read them, that's fine, and if you don't want to discuss this that's fine too - a consensus will simply have to made without your input. However, you are welcome to return if you change your mind.

On your question, well I will keep it short: There has never been clear consensus that ESCDaily is reliable either, but user comments are definitely not reliable, even if we shouldn't ignore them completely. CT Cooper · talk 18:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Tony, did you read the entire headline in the ESCDaily article, which reads "42 countries reportedly confirm; the Czech Republic to return?"? The headline itself is separated by a semicolon ";" which indicates that the question mark "?" relates to the Czech Republic, and not the first half of the headline. And like CT has rightfully pointed out, all editors have tolerated for 2 weeks now the fact that a revert by yourself went ahead before any overall consensus was made by everyone involve in this project, which could have resulted in edit warring, however, your revert is still in place, whilst a discussion is taking place to find mutual ground and resolution to this matter. Now if you're struggling to answer CT Coopers questions, then it should be finalized that your reversion is annulled. If you disagree with this, then we can always take matter further by filing a request at WP:MEDCAB, or even WP:DISPUTE to settle this matter once and for all. Wesley Mouse (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Like I said delete everything I have write in this page. Revert the changes. Put 41 participants I am not participating anymore in the Eurovision website. If you won't even pay attention to the comments by other escfans (I know they should not be used a source but is just to show what other people think on that list from news.az) and if you actually believe that the Czech Republic returned and there are already 41 confirmed participants. Go ahead. This is the end of the discussion. Is it clear now? Tony0106 (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If this discussion has run its course it will be archived like all the others. CT Cooper · talk 21:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Aye, it looks like it has ran a dead-end. Time to archive. Only thing now is, what happens next? Wesley Mouse (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this one of the longest discussions ever? Just out of curiosity.... --Spa-Franks (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It is certainly one of the longest related to Eurovision, yes. CT Cooper · talk 10:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well NovaSkola (talk · contribs) has re-added the content with alternative sources, which is a good thing in any case, as having variety in sourcing is a good idea. The next step would be to re-add the confirmed participants from the Azerbaijani news sources, if we are satisfied that they are reliable. CT Cooper · talk 10:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It sure is a bizarre start for me as a newbie to Wikipedia. But one that was very interesting nonetheless, and opened my eyes the different moods people can get into on the internet. Thank you CT Cooper for the barnstar too. As to re-adding the content, then we can either use News.az (again), or I can get the link from ESCDaily, which also shows the same list of "confirmed" participants. Wesley Mouse (talk) 10:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Using multiple sources to source content together is helpful if it is controversial, as in this case, so it might be a good idea to use both the ESCDaily and the News.az sources. CT Cooper · talk 10:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

OK that sounds reasonable in all respects. Here is that link from ESCDaily.com which may be used if you wish. Wesley Mouse (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I will add them tonight (in an hour or two) if nobody beats me to it. I'm planning to add Armenia under "Possible withdrawals" as the source is pretty clear that their participation is uncertain, while Morocco will stay as it is. It is also implied that the Czech Republic is uncertain, but if they are added as confirmed they can easily be removed later if necessary. CT Cooper · talk 20:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Despite what I said above, using a mixture of sources provided to be complicated, so I just used the ESC Daily source, plus a News.az article for the uncertainty over Armenia. CT Cooper · talk 22:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't read the whole discussion about this topic, so I don't know if this has already been said (But I think not): This whole controversy can be used as a test for the reliability of News.az. If some participan given as confirmed by News.az pulls out later, it would serve as a confirmation that they would be unreliable. If all confirmations given by News.az receive further confirmation by official sources, it would be a point about their reliability. (Although they are right now in a privileged position, since they are a news site from the host country, so they are more likely to have access to first-hand information than any other given year in which Azerbaijan doesn´t host the Contest). So, if we wait and see, it's possible to reach a conclusion about News.az's reliability according to how things happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.248.181.11 (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if a notable number of countries changed their minds it would be the evidence of unreliability that I would be looking for, however there have been cases of broadcasters changing their minds which even the most reliable of sources could never predict. The only problem is as you say, News.Az is in a privileged position for just this year, and it wasn't used much (if at all) before this contest and probably won't be afterwards, unless Azerbaijan wins again. CT Cooper · talk 11:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah man not even the EBU knows who is going to participate but news.az knows for sure. Is too bad that you and other users did not discuss this topic before. Otherwise we would be having a different story right now. And by the way Albania did not pull out they just say their participation was unclear for now. It is normal. It's August. Too early 190.37.35.244 (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't say Albania pulled out, it says their participation is in doubt. Also, what I said to Tony below applies to unregistered users as well. CT Cooper · talk 10:23, 27 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)

I've already responded to your concerns. Unless you have a constructive reply to my response, repeating your opinion again is not going to achieve anything. CT Cooper · talk 20:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Then you should also put the UK confirmed. http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=37923&_t=spice_girls_reunite_for_eurovision — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.216.218 (talk) 11:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean, though as I said earlier there is an argument that it is safer not to accept either sources. CT Cooper · talk 11:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the information from Spain is based on an interview and the interviewee (in this case Falete) says he would like to represent Spain in Eurovision, nothing more. It is not official information from TVE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.216.218 (talk) 11:46 20 August 2011

The problem is not where the source comes from, it is the fact that Wikipedia must only state what sources say per the Wikipedia:No original research policy, in other words we should strictly speaking say a country is confirmed only if a reliable source states "X country will participate in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012" or something along those lines. Neither source does this, hence the issue. As I have said in a section above, there is nothing in policy which says we need sources direct from the broadcaster or the EBU. Anything which is considered reliable per the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources guideline is acceptable. CT Cooper · talk 11:57, 20 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/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.216.218 (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The linked article isn't well written and doesn't read very well at all, but from what I can get out of it, there is no clear confirmation of participation for Greece. CT Cooper · talk 20:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how articles like this come about. That author can usually write somewhat understandable articles. Another reason why Oikotimes is on my use with caution list. Grk1011 (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

I've now made Cyprus green on the map. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Eurovision template

Could someone edit this? Spa-Franks (talk) 08:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Which Eurovision template are you referring to? CT Cooper · talk 14:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 --Spa-Franks (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What is that you want to be changed? CT Cooper · talk 10:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd need someone to monitor this and watch participants. --Spa-Franks (Talk) 13:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I already keep an eye on the template and update it when it is different from the article. CT Cooper · talk 15:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Is not Belarus confirmed?

Appeared to be confirmed before and not now.--84.125.216.218 (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The content was removed in this diff. The reasons for this is that the sources used were disliked, see #news.az is an unreliable source. CT Cooper · talk 14:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ukraine have confirmed

http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/17600 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.1.208 (talk) 10:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

done. --Redpower94 (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

UK Confirmation

Well done for finding this but it's iffy at best. I'd say it was a confirmation, just.

So could someone edit the map, and I'll do the numbers. --Spa-Franks (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Bulgaria have confirmed

http://escdaily.com/articles/20428 The source is BNT itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.50.109.26 (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Y Done CT Cooper · talk 21:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Italy/San Marino?

Do you think this is a confirmation for Italy and San Marino? I'm not sure if it's reliable... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.26.71 (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure either, but a source has just been added which covers both San Marino and Italy, so its addition may not be necessary. CT Cooper · talk 22:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Albania might not enter

Albania's entry is under question. Based on info from this site http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/17607 --NovaSkola (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a newer source and ESCToday is considered the most reliable of the Eurovision fan sites, so Albania should perhaps be removed from the participants list and placed in possible withdrawals. It is too late in the evening for me to do this before tomorrow morning (UTC). CT Cooper · talk 22:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No way man. ESCToday.com is crazy. If Guns.az and news.az said Albania will participate is because Albania will participate. What's wrong with you NovaSkola are you saying that 42 countries list from news.az is fake??? You're way out of your head. Tony0106 (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You know, that comment wasn't exactly constructive... — Ines(talk) 04:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Tony, if you want to contribute constructively then you will be welcome, but repeatedly putting sarcastic comments on this page in order to disrupt discussions and to voice your displeasure on the article content is a violation of WP:POINT and won't be tolerated indefinitely. CT Cooper · talk 10:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I will move Albania to the "Possible withdrawals" list now. The ESCDaily source is a week old, so keeping an eye out for new information in case the situation has changed is sensible, however I will be surprised if Albania do actually withdraw. I also should point out that we have historically treated the beginning of national selection procedures a confirmation, so even without the ESCDaily/News.az sources, Albania would still probably be listed as confirmed. CT Cooper · talk 10:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it true 21 to 40 confirmed...!?

Can it really be true that there are 40 countries that have confirmed participation? From 21 to 40 in less than a day? I just meant that last time it became such a large collection of confirmed countries it was taken back to the original again. Not even the map confirms all these countries! I just want to know about the source that indicates almost 20 countries confirmed is honest or not. And if it's not honest then revert to the old version. /Hollac16 (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It didn't go from 21 to 40 in a day - it has been building up for a while, but it was effectively frozen at around twenty for over two weeks while discussion was ongoing, and even two weeks ago it was in the thirties. See #news.az is an unreliable source. CT Cooper · talk 12:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

But I want to know if it is 40 that really has confirmed or if it is just 21? Is ESCDaily a safe source? /Hollac16 (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

ESC Daily has been used as a source for years, though there has never been a consensus on if it is reliable or not reliable. ESC Daily isn't the original source for this information anyway, that was several Azerbiajani news sites whose reliability has been discussed to death at #news.az is an unreliable source, however using an ESC Daily does have the benefit of scrutiny by an additional website. CT Cooper · talk 13:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

seems that norway is considering withdrawal

a norwegian supported building in baku was torn down which could cause issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 05:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If there are any sources about Norway's possible withdrawal please present them so they can be added to the article. CT Cooper · talk 10:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Albania have confirmed

Winner of 50 Festival of the song in the Albanian Public Television RTSH will participate in EusoSong 2012. The 50-festival held in December 2011. http://www.noa.al/2011/08/%E2%80%9Ceurovizion-2012%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%93-konfirmon-shqiperine-bashkon-%E2%80%98spice-girl%E2%80%99-shfaq-marokun-largon-armenine/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs) 14:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I have translated the source and it appears to be a confirmation. However, the ESCToday article is also very recent and there is clear consensus that ESCToday is reliable, meaning that it will need a reliable and clear source to override it. I will await a third opinion. CT Cooper · talk 19:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Malta have confirmed

Sourced from esctoday.com http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/17610 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.205.125 (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, this more specific source was added earlier today. CT Cooper · talk 21:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The map needs updating.

Now that the confirmed countries list counts 40 countries it would be convenient to update the map to reflect this, since it seems to be still on the 21-countries version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.198.78 (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Morocco and Czech Republic won´t return

From ESC Kaz.com:

Series of Azerbaijani press articles with claims of the lists of "confirmed countries" are totally fake. Usually, they are just based on Wikipedia lists and have no other sources. For example, lists of up to 25 confirmed countries were published in early August when EBU was not even yet accepting the confirmations still working on the rules and venue.

In particular, wiki-rumoured comeback of Czech Republic has been denied to us by ex-head of it's delegation: "There is no update on this, we will not be in", he told.

"I have never heard about any plans of SNRT participation in Eurovision Song Contest", informed ESCKAZ Director of International Relations of Moroccan broadcaster Fatima El Moumen, responsible also for collaboration with EBU and who was present at the latest EBU Assembly where SNRT has extended EBU membership for the next two years. 2M Marocco has applied for EBU membership in 2002 and has been denied it, thus SNRT is the only member channel from Morocco.

What do you think?.--WABBAW (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it is really not good that english Wikipedia have used a source that says that 40 countries have confirmed participation for 2012 now. As we all know this scenario would be impossible when I am 100% convinced that more than half of these "confirmed" is not even discussed the issue in their home countries. That is why I entitled annoyed that this has approved a source based on a previously non-faithful source saying that 40 (42) have confirmed participation. No, it's only 22 countries that have confirmed participation. I want this to everyone: wait until EBU or ESCToday have confirmed, not a source that says a source which says a soruce that says that country X will participate, however when EBU still wating for 25 december to announce this. /Hollac16 (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this was discussed thoroughly and you had plenty of time to comment. The article was left frozen for two weeks as a friendly gesture to allow discussion, and I'm not happy to find out that this time was not used wisely in some cases. If you are contributing to an article, it is a good idea to keep an eye on what is happening on the talk page. CT Cooper · talk 11:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not allowed to use sources that are sourced from Wikipedia, otherwise it is a circular reference. However, ESC Kaz's theory on what the Azerbaijani news sites are doing doesn't make sense though, since countries have only been added in response to sources, not the other round. ESC Kaz's view on Wikipedia's definition of a confirmed country is somewhat inaccurate and arguably contradicts policy. Wikipedia's actual definition is the same as all other content in encyclopedic articles - it has been reported by any reliable source. On the whole, this article from ESC Kaz reads more like an opinion piece more than a researched report, and given some clear inaccuracies, concerns can be raised about this sources previous status as "semi-reliable".

The claims of Czech Republic's return has been reported my multiple sources and did not originate from Wikipedia - at worst, Czech Republic should just be moved back to the "Possible returns" section. I did seriously consider leaving the Czech Republic where it is as even the ESC Daily source implies doubt on the issue. Morocco's possible return has also been reported by multiple reliable sources, so its inclusion at present is appropriate, even if ESC Kaz don't think they will return. CT Cooper · talk 11:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

40 countries confirmed?!!!

A few days ago there were 19 confirmed and now you put 40? Are you sure?