Talk:Armenia–Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

8th Junior Eurovision Contest controversy[edit]

The so-called controversial information about ITV's unethical actions during the Junior Eurovision is pure nonsense. This allegation is based entirely on news reports from biased Armenian news agencies. Keep in mind that this information did not get confirmed later; there was no EBU involvement or any follow-up on these allegetions at all. What is more, the reports coming from Armenia are in turn based on "private sources in Baku" which is way too speculative to even consider including it into an encyclopaedic article. This is not being "pro-Azerbaijan", this is about being able to assess the sources we choose to include here. Parishan (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe so but I feel that we need atleast one more users opinion before we revert sutch a large part of the article. Also by viewing your talk page I can see that you have been in other conflicts about Azerbaijan and Armenia related subjects. Its time to chill,take a step back and let this article run its course.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I think I am capable of deciding when it is time for me to chill. As for your take on this article, there are certain rules by which Wikipedia contributors must abide. Judging whether the deletion of information is substantiated or not should not be based on your personal impression of the user's history of contributions, but on the regulations which you, as a recently-registered user, perhaps need to familiarise yourself with a little better: WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. "Maybe so", "you seem pro-Azerbaijan", and "you have been in conflicts" are not the type of argumentation we use on talkpages here; and neither is patronising. Parishan (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Strange that you proclaim that I should not be patronising when that is all you are against me?. I seriously doubt that there is any point in discussing this any further with you.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
If you had read my very first comment on this talkpage, you would know exactly what I have against your offer to keep this information in the article (and not against you personally as you put it; this is a discussion page, not a personality battle). The gist of it is that we must keep unencyclopaedic format out of Wikipedia. Parishan (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
What I dont like and you know this very well is that you refuse to wait a few days and let a third party opinion in. You know very well that the material you have removed are well sourced an encyclopaedic. I wil not continue this discussion any further. You say that personal opinions on wether to Keep or delete certain material arent up for an individual to decide. Still you give yourself the right to remove a huge part of an article. And you very well know that is wrong.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

A request has been made at WT:EURO for some input to be given here, and so I have volunteered to give a third opinion. I am not infallible and nobody is obliged to go along with my conclusion, though I hope that this input helps break the deadlock. I have reviewed the issue in detail and hence my post is quite long, therefore I have provided a TL;DR summary at the end.

The sources seem to check out okay for the content they are citing, however I had to translate two into English which didn't go that well. I don't know much about the websites, but three out of the four are news sites which should generally pass WP:IRS okay. Though saying that none of the sources seemed particularly neutral on the issue, and seemed to show a bias one way or the other, but many sources which are considered reliable by Wikipedia are looked at as biased by some groups, such as BBC News and Fox News. The text made clear that there was a dispute with language such as "According to Armenian news reports..." and both sides were presented, so I don't see any neutrality issue here in the article itself.

The case for exclusion of the content is that the sources making the allegations are speculative, based on private sources, and are simply "nonsense". There is sometimes grounds to exclude content based on speculation, such as when the source is unreliable or the relevant content is stating something as an indisputable fact, particularly about future events, when it isn't e.g. declaring the location of the next Eurovision Song Contest when there are mixed reports on where it is. This isn't an issue here as the article content made clear that these allegations were allegations. In some other cases removal of content based on speculation can be justified when editors are being speculative, and going beyond what the sources say. Wikipedia does, and arguably should, include content which is speculative if it passes WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:IRS.

Another issue raised was that the sources sourced their information from private sources. WP:V requires that content is from published sources, which it is here, but does not require that the sources of the sources are also published. In fact, I can say with certainty that lots of sources used in Eurovision articles are based on private previously unpublished material, which is not an issue as long as there is some king of editorial oversight to pass WP:IRS taking place between the private source and its information getting on Wikipedia.

Finally, the truthfulness of the content has been questioned. WP:V states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." This works in two ways, in that unverifiable content should not be added just because editors think it is true, and verifiable content should not be removed just because editors think that is not true. Policy in Wikipedia allows content to exist even if it is based on allegations which may not be true, as long as the controversy on such issues is made clear and content is presented fairly and without bias per WP:NPOV, and passes all other policies such as WP:V.

TL;DR summary:

  • A case could be made that the sources are biased, but that does not in itself make the use of the sources unacceptable.
  • The content that was removed appears to pass WP:NPOV.
  • Speculation is only grounds to remove content in certain circumstances, which do not in my opinion apply in this instance.
  • WP:V only requires that the sources be published; the actual sources of the sources need not be published and often aren't.
  • The truthfulness of the allegations underlying the content is not the test of inclusion, verifiability is, per WP:V.

Therefore, I reach the conclusion there is not a strong policy basis for removal of the content, and that should be restored. Further opinions from others are welcome. CT Cooper · talk 23:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I support this. I also say and has always said restore the content.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Also two other users support this on the noticeboard so quite a consensus in favour of restoring. Which has been made now. Good to see that users realised that removing the content was wrong. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Armenia–Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 22:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


Will leave the initial comments within two days. Jaguar 22:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Initial comments[edit]

  • The lead doesn't mention anything about the 2006 contest, remember it has to adequately summarise the whole article!
  • "the contest became the subject of a boycott by a group of Armenian musicians" - who in particular?
  • The 2006 contest section is looking very short. Can it be expanded at all?
  • "a statue located in Stepanakert, capital city of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" - missing a conjunction, a statue located in Stepanakert, the capital city of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic
  • The first half of the 2012 section is unsourced. Things like "however, the Armenian Ministry of Defence later admitted that he was killed by a fellow Armenian soldier" need to be referenced


References[edit]

  • Ref 18 is dead and needs replacing. However apart from that the other references appear to be working fine and the citations are all in the correct places, so that would meet the GA criteria.

On hold[edit]

There are some concerns here which can be easily addressed, among them the copyediting issues, ref issues, and the size of the 2006 contest section. However if all of those issues are addressed, this should have no difficulty in passing the GAN. I'll put this on hold for seven days and once they have been sorted we can take another look. Regards Jaguar 16:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The "dead" reference site needed a new URL format. I did some other tweaks. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Close - promoted[edit]

Thanks for addressing them. I see the improvements made and am happy to see the rework done to the 2006 section. I think this article now meets the GA criteria, albeit for a short review. The references are now fine, it is well written and has definitely improved over a day. Well done Good article Jaguar 19:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)