Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Esctoday attacked by hackers

Esctoday.com has been totally erased by hackers who is against the Eurovisions glorification of the Gay community and Gay pride it seems. 12 years of work erased in seconds. I dont know if it has anything to do with the fact that the contest is about a week away and in Azerbaijan. Or if it has any connection to the many threats made against the contest. Im just speculating here, but it is sad too see years of work gone.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Eurovision.tv also got hacked last week for the same reason. What are the chances the same group of hackers would target this article too? Should we be extra vigilant here? Wesley☀Mouse 11:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

ESCToday are using their Facebook page temporarily while they work on restoring their website. Wesley☀Mouse 11:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling these hacker attacks soon will become news in the media. Yeah I think we should be extra careful until May 26 with this article as it is a potential target for the hackers. Perhaps bringing it up at the administrators discussion board so the whole community becomes aware. Im just saying if these hackers can erase these sites then they could potentially erase this article...--BabbaQ (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Maximising the awareness of this hacking attack to a wider Wikipedia community will be logical, and we'd be basically battening down the hatches to protect Wikipedia from any attacks. Wesley☀Mouse 12:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could bring it up on the administrators noticeboard.. or similar. But glad you agree with me about the seriousness of this situation. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just brought this to the attention of a wider community at WP:AN. Wesley☀Mouse 12:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • ESCDaily and ESCKaz have also been victims to these attacks over the last 2 weeks. So yes, we definitly need to be 1,000,000% vigilant on this. Wesley☀Mouse 12:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Perhaps a mention in the article about these hackings/attacks would be appropriate. And yes I agree with you, we need to be 100% vigilant. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I support the idea of mentioning the hacking, perhaps in a new section called "Hacking incidents". Now, about the hacking issue itself, is there anything we can do as users to protect the article? Not A Superhero (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
        • According to WP:AN there is nothing that we can do to protect the article from possible attacks. They say that we (Wikipedia) won't be a target. Yet, ESCToday said the exact same thing when Eurovision.tv got hacked into, and look what happened now - ESCToday got hacked. I get the impression that this article isn't a "priority" in the eyes of the hierarchy. Wesley☀Mouse 13:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
          • The impression that you should have obtained is that you don't fully appreciate the technicalities. ☺ There's a whole world of difference between vandalizing an individual article on Wikipedia, which even ordinary editors like all of you here can fix, and actually taking the entire site down. The "hacking" that you're talking about involves taking entire sites down and (apparently) erasing their databases. That's always a concern of WMF-hosted projects, but it has no especial relevance to any individual articles in that database. Nor is it something that administrators could fix. (Remember: "administrator" and "sysop" are a bad names, unfortunate and poor choices when MediaWiki was being written. We aren't part of any "administration" and we aren't system operators.) Uncle G (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
            • Yeah let's make a small mention of the hacker attacks on the Eurovision sites. Swedish media has reported on them so it is news.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
              • One of the hacked sites conducted its own investigation, and they claim that the attack was organized by the Iranian government, which is not happy about Azerbaijan hosting this contest. The text is in Russian though: [1] Grandmaster 21:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't got a clue what Uncle G is on about. Who said anything about not appreciating technicalities? C'est la vie Wesley☀Mouse 17:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If that's 12 years of news wiped, and no back-up, than we are going to have to find new sources, a lot of new sources for old news.:( -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 19:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes their is another issue. Now this article and many other Eurovision oriented articles is filled with dead links from Esctoday.com if the site cant rescue its material we are having a problem.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't panic too much, all may not be lost afterall. ESCToday have announced on their Facebook page that they are revamping the website with new features, and the EBU are kindly donating 12 years worth of news to them. Plus if memory serves me right, didn't ESCToday change their server location a couple of years ago? So they should have some files backed-up from that move. Anyhow, the site is hoping to be back up and running before the semis begin. I'm sure between us all, we can fix the link issue - we are a team aren't we? :-) Wesley☀Mouse 17:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Trying not to get ahead of this, but Eurovision.tv is bugged up displaying 404. Hopefully this is not connected, but thought I'd bring it up. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 23:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I doubt its related, as Eurovision.tv was the first site to be hacked into by this "Iranian" group a few weeks ago. Don't think lightning will strike twice on the same website in this case. Wesley☀Mouse 23:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I've found some news sites that are reporting these "hacks" and they are in English, if anyone is still thinking of adding the details to this article. Pinknews and PanArmenian.net have both stated Eurovision.tv was first attacked in April, and then EscToday, Eurovision.az; and eurovisionaz.com were attacked on the same day. Could it really be possible that the EBU's official page has become a victim a second time? Wesley☀Mouse 23:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Update According to this website report Eurovision.tv has been hacked again for a third time this year by the same group of people. Wesley☀Mouse 00:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Everything is possible. I'm sure the attacks were made from outside of Azerbaijan. Some neighboring countries are not really happy about this contest being held in Azerbaijan. There were similar attacks on Azerbaijani governmental websites recently, and they were perpetrated by the same group: [2] Azerbaijan accused Iran of organizing the attack: [3], even though Iranian officials denied complicity. But the rhetoric used by hackers is pretty much in line with the Iranian official policy, which gives you some food for thought. Grandmaster 13:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Tensions with Iran, the latter objecting the contest being held in Baku: [4] [5] [6] Iran recalls envoy to Azerbaijan. Should this be covered in the article? Grandmaster 12:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Not too sure if it should or shouldn't - let's see what others on the project think. Personally, as it is mainly digressing into Iranian-Azerbaijan relations, then perhaps the "envoy" details would be better off listed in such an article (if one exists), and perhaps adding a small sentence about it, with a "See main article... xxxx". Wesley☀Mouse 18:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC) -- It just so happens, that there is an article Azerbaijan–Iran relations, which would benefit this "recall envoy to Azerbaijan" information being included. Wesley☀Mouse 18:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't much favor including political info into such articles, but in this case I think there's a direct relation between these events and the contest. In particular, the fact that high ranking Irani officials condemned the contest being held in Baku. Grandmaster 18:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, something as controversial as this is, it may be a wise idea to build an opinion first, before we start getting overly-bold and jumping in at the deep end. What do others think, should it get a brief mention on this article, and a fully expanded version at Azerbaijan–Iran relations article? or something different? or nothing at all? Wesley☀Mouse 18:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Eurovision.tv has been attacked again, as the website is just a pure white page now, with nothing on it whatsoever. I'll keep you updated if any news developments are published about it. Wesley☀Mouse 21:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, something is wrong there. Grandmaster 21:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Its ok it was nothing. The site was working again seconds before the press conference started. One can only assume that the EBU played tactically and temporarily disabled the site as a precaution. Wesley☀Mouse 23:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The official site has been hacked AGAIN, totally wiped at 6 hours prior to the grand final, what surprises me is the reports on this are VERY obscure compared to say US Government web hacks...maybe because there is nothing too official said about it however can we get a reference to this on the page? Very noteworthy together with the other social problems surrounding this event that should get a mention at some point — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.69.46 (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

They enabled some DDoS protection software, which suggests that they had a reason for doing it. Grandmaster 18:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Albania not to broadcast semi 1 live after bus crash

Should we mention in the article that Albanian television will not broadcast semifinal 1 live tonight after the very serious bus crash yesterday. 100% jury votes will be used from the country and the semifinal will not be broadcasted at all it seems.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ooops my mistake. It already had a small mention. Good.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Qafa e Vishës bus tragedy. Made a small mention of the non-broadcast in the article concerning the crash.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that BabbaQ; I'm on the ball tonight, and got it in there very quickly. Wesley☀Mouse 18:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Good work!--BabbaQ (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Right, now to watch the first semi-final... c'mon Austria, Cyprus, Greece, Iceland, and Ireland. Wesley☀Mouse 18:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Typo

"EBU declined to show the Human Rights Watch video at the workshop about the media rights at Azarbaijan." -> Azerbaijan Can anybody correct this? Regagain (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done DoctorKubla (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

Should it include the Executive supervisor, they seem to appear every year? -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why it shouldn't to be honest; especially when he (or she in previous years) does get a 2-minute camera shot in each contest. Give'em their moment of fame and include the name on the infobox :-) Wesley☀Mouse 14:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Finalists

The lead says: "Ten countries from each semi-final will qualify for the final and will be joined by Azerbaijan, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom." I can't see anywhere in the text where it explains why those six don't need to qualify, other than a reference (without wikilink or explanation) to there being a "big five". Could some clarity please be added? --Dweller (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with the lead as it stands. Although I agree the clarity could do with being added, perhaps under the "format" section would be a logical place to add this. Wesley☀Mouse 14:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Icelandic Representative: Misspelling

Greta Salóme Stefánsdóttir has no accent over the e in her first name. i.e., "Gréta" is incorrect (see http://ruv.is/songvakeppni). Could this be corrected in this and all the linked articles? Kingky (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Not forgetting gretasalome.com. It seems you are right. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 11:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, you confirmed a suspicion that I've had for a long time. – Andreyyshore (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Dates for 2013 announced

The provisional dates for the 2013 contest have been released: 14, 16 and 18 May 2013.[7] -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 12:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Now I like those dates, love it when the EBU do ESC early on in May, and not make us wait until almost June. Wesley☀Mouse 14:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticisms and controversy

Amnesty International: Azerbaijan: Eurovision is deaf to human rights abuses 22 May 2012. The increased media coverage will be meaningless if it does not persuade Azerbaijan’s diplomatic and business partners to act in defence of freedom of expression. Despite publicly committing to support free expression in Azerbaijan, the EBU has maintained a deathly silence on recent repeated violations of that right Max Tucker Amnesty International’s Azerbaijan campaigner said on 22/05/2012.

Because of the Azeri government’s repressive policies, this years’ Eurovision will happen in the shadow of serious human rights violations (HWR). “Hosting Eurovision means the Azerbaijani government can showcase Baku to thousands of visitors and millions of television viewers,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “However, the event is overshadowed by the illegal evictions, expropriations, and demolitions for hundreds of local residents forced out of their homes.”

NovaSkola in my opinion the removed Criticisms and controversy deserves place in the article [8]. According to guidelines Wikipedia:Five pillars We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner. Criticisms was verifiable and the sources are reliable Third-party sources: Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. In World Report 2012: Azerbaijan HRW say that the EBU should help to ensure freedom of the press, the government should allow peaceful protests, release political prisoners and pay a fair price for the forcibly evicted residents [9]. The Azerbaijani authorities’ illegal expropriation of properties and forcible evictions of dozens of families in four Baku neighborhoods [10]. Based above if you find text biased you may improve it, but not remove it [11].

In my opinion the human rights in Azerbaijan violations should be covered in the article much more in detail. Many are interested in the politics of EBU. The European Broadcasting Union has maintained a deathly silence on recent repeated violations. It needs in my opinion a lot of media attention. Watti Renew (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to Armenia–Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest and Azerbaijan in the Eurovision Song Contest, where the more a more extensive outline of this would be more beneficial, with a summarised version being included on this article (as it is in its current format). Wesley☀Mouse 14:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not liking the choice of opening word that has just been added to European Broadcasting Union#Criticisms and controversy. The words "according to" sounds very speculative and one-sided; making me feel like the piece shouldn't be included. Wesley☀Mouse 14:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I restored the first paragraph which was previously subject to discussion on this talk page with consensus for its inclusion being retained. It should not be removed without a clear policy basis and further discussion. I don't have an opinion at this point on the subsequent paragraphs which were more recent additions. That said, I am against miscellaneous controversy/criticism sections per WP:CSECTION in most cases - controversy over the venue section should be integrated into the venue section and so on. CT Cooper · talk 12:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just read European Broadcasting Union#Criticisms and controversy - the tone is blatantly inappropriate for an encylopedic article, and this is not exactly the first year in which there has been controversy with Eurovision. Why does this year gets its own special section in the EBU article? CT Cooper · talk 12:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It is common practise to include the person or organisation behind the critics (according to). Watti Renew (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

But the words "according to" aren't exactly encyclopaedic, like CT Cooper pointed out. It makes us sound like we're a newsdesk, reporting a breaking headline. Wesley☀Mouse 15:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not English. You can change wording better. Critics: [12]: Here all the human rights parties have alike critics. It is not only one actor. If you want to separate this in several chapters its ok. In my opinion critics and controversies is the most neutral word. I find human rights violations serious and above politics, meaning that violations are not allowed from any parties and they are not bargained. Gay rights can be included here. Watti Renew (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The "according to" part doesn't worry me so much, it is more the "deathly silence" and the generally emotional tone of that section. Encyclopedic articles should always be non-emotional regardless of what the topic is. CT Cooper · talk 16:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I note that the paragraphs have been added citing this talk page, although I have to say that I don't see a consensus here for it to be re-added. Previously I didn't have an opinion; I do now: the content is again written in an excessively emotional tone. More problematic though is that the two new paragraphs don't even mention the 2012 Eurovision Song Contest, and certainly aren't talking about the venue, which is supposed to be the topic of that section. So I have to ask, what are they there for? There already is an article titled Human rights in Azerbaijan, so any content like that should be added there as appropriate. We can't include everything there is to know about Azerbaijan, nor cherry pick topics for off-topic coverage because they are believed to be important. CT Cooper · talk 17:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree - the paragraph needs to be re-homed in a more appropriate area such as Human rights in Azerbaijan. We're starting to get a little over zealous lately in adding things more than is necessary. Stick to the script, keep Eurovision related details to this article, and anything else not related be added to articles that would benefit it more. If needs be, we could always add "See also.." for anyone who may be interested in digging deeper into controversies. Wesley☀Mouse 17:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm removing it as it is bad for the project to such problematic content to stay in what is now a highly viewed article. It should not be re-added without a major re-write, some relevance to the actual content, and talk page consensus. CT Cooper · talk 18:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it is strange that there is no mention of this in the Baku Crystal Hall article. I think if it should be mentioned anywhere it is on the Halls on article.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Cooper - Wouldn't now be the perfect time to look into restructure for the project as a whole? Setting out some guidelines as to what should and shouldn't be included on any Eurovision article. Its about time we grabbed things by the balls and got back on the right profession track. We're editors of an encyclopaedia, none of us is Mystic Meg and possess a crystal ball. @BabbaQ - why should information about Human Rights be added to an article about a building? Where is the connection between a construction and human rights issues? Wesley☀Mouse 18:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

We clearly think alike! See below. CT Cooper · talk 18:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ahh yes Sensei - you teach me well! But its true, we are starting to get out of control and just adding random crap now. The way things are heading, we will be soon include whenever an artist has farted, had a shit, or what they've eaten during their stay in Baku. Details like that would only be added if they are notable enough and warrant inclusion. I noticed the project use to have a newsletter, perhaps looking into resurrecting that would be a good thing, although making it a bi-monthly edition rather than a monthly one. And I don't mind helping out with its publication either. Wesley☀Mouse 18:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

What can I say, great minds think alike!.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Started a discussion about the material on the Baku Crystal Hall talk page.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• It was a bit of burden even at bimonthly level, but I would not be against resurrecting it if the project has the manpower to do it. CT Cooper · talk 19:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hmmm I think I'm on the verge of nominating myself to manpower on the newsletter. Although I'd like to discuss it in more detail, and know the ins and outs of it and how its edited, issued to members etc. Would it be possible Cooper, to post an example onto one of my sandbox pages, so that I can look at the HTML layout etc? Wesley☀Mouse 19:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This is insane. What possible justification is there for including a three-paragraph section on the graphic design, and censoring discussion of the human rights issues covered in every major media source in the world? Khazar2 (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop re-adding content that is currently being discussed about. Your attempts to re-add such information to the article is disruptive and uncooperative to the project. Allow this exercise to run its course. There is no rush. Wesley☀Mouse 18:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing on gay rights controversy

Why doesn't the word gay appear even once in the article when Iran and Azerbaijan are having a diplomatic row over the contest's image as gay-friendly or gay-promoting even? __meco (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Azerbaijani - Iranian relations and whether they should be mentioned in this article are discussed in this thread above: [13] You may wish to comment there. Grandmaster 08:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Winner by OGAE members

Just wondering what makes this notable for inclusion, I'm sure it would be just of included bookmakers or betting agencies picks. Afro (Talk) 12:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Never seen it before in a Eurovision year article and in my opinion it is too trivial. I would support removal - it is covered by the OGAE page anyway. CT Cooper · talk 12:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've noticed these details appear across a handful of articles too; not just this one. Eurovision Song Contest 2010#Winner by OGAE members; Eurovision Song Contest 2011#Winner by OGAE members; Eurovision Song Contest 2009#Winner by OGAE members; Eurovision Song Contest 2008#Winner by OGAE members; and Eurovision Song Contest 2007#Winner by OGAE members are just a selection of articles I've noticed so far. Wesley☀Mouse 15:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I support that the section be kept in the article. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This and the inclusion of the Marcel Bezençon Awards looks like yet another mass rollout of tables without consensus to me. Articles at the end of the day are only supposed to summarise their topic and the line has to be drawn somewhere. Worse still, these aren't even being sourced. The way things are going we are going to have an article full of tables and lists with little bit of text here and there. CT Cooper · talk 16:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

BabbaQ can you elaborate for the reasons as to why you think this should be accepted into the article? what makes the opinion of an organisation run by fans notable enough for inclusion? Afro (Talk) 16:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I fully support their removal from articles, and agree with Cooper too - a line has to be draw somewhere as to how much information is included in Eurovision-related articles. If we start bombarding articles with lists and tables and hardly any text, then we're not exactly sticking to encyclopaedic rules are we. Keep OGAE winners to the OGAE article. Wesley☀Mouse 16:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Loreen gets criticism from Azeri official

An azeri official Ali Hasanov that is a close friend of the Azeri president has criticized Swedens entrant Loreen and the swedish delegation for being too political and has turned to EBU with the matter. Just because Loreen has met up with a few Human rights organizations during her stay in Baku. It is what Swedish media are reporting. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Well Azerbaijan should get their act together, and stop acting stupid. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 15:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Loreen is doing a good thing being the only eurovision act this year to have met with the human rights organizations in Azerbaijan.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to suggest to change the section name to Swedish entrant in diplomatic drama or Sweden in diplomatic drama Or Loreen in diplomatic crisis. Or similar. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Not the first time, in 2009 Malena Ernman spoke out about the Gay community in Russia [14]. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah but this time it seem to be alot more serious. As Azeri media has trash-talked Loreen since she arrived in Baku. Perhaps something to mention in the section that Loreen has been criticized by Azeri media too.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't like the use of 'Drama' , something like 'Criticism of the Swedish delegation'? -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Have changed the title now. If anyone finds any updates or more information please add it to the section.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

One more thing, does 'Swedish TV' correspond to all of Swedish television, or just SVT? -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably only SVT as no other Swedish channel is involved in Eurovision.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

According to Swedish media, regime owned media in azerbaijan has reported that Swedish authorities had told Loreen to speak about human rights in Azerbaijan and that, that is reason enough for EBU to silence Loreen. Which is totally faked news by the regime.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Upon reading this following line "Loreen has met as private person different persons and organizations. She has the right for it. However, it is not correct to try limit human freedom of expression"; I'm starting to wonder if this section on Swedish controversy is purely based on personal biased opinion. The wording of that sentence is most certainly make it look that way. Wesley☀Mouse 18:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing obviously problematic at the moment, but I am still giving a gentle reminder that the WP:BLP policy does apply to this section, particularly with this article likely to be linked from the Main Page in two days time, and any content with doubts about reliability, factual accuracy e.t.c. should be removed without hesitation. CT Cooper · talk 18:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That particular line is dubious and looks very opinionated. "Loreen has met as private person different persons and organizations." - without knowing the full details, this could imply that Loreen is a shapeshifter and transformed into a private person, a different person, and an organisation - which is physically impossible. The second part; "She has the right for it." - really!? who said she had the right? And then we have "However, it is not correct to try limit human freedom of expression" - again, really!? who said it is not correct to try and limit? A person with common sense would easily figure out the interpretation; but we're to write an article in a manner that is informative to those who can and cannot understand interpretations. Wesley☀Mouse 18:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, I clearly can't read; I thought you were quoting what someone said above. Yes, that content is clearly inappropriate and doesn't make grammatical sense anyway. It is not for Wikipedia to decide what is right or wrong - I have removed that bit. CT Cooper · talk 18:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Its quite alright Cooper - you're like me at the minute, with a lot on your plate. Is it tomorrow when you do your exams? I'm still tender this week after the funeral on Monday. But I'm trying my best to focus on things here - and the resent events have actually opened my eyes if I'm being honest. I can see what people write in different meanings now, and look at everything from all angles. Oh dear, does that make me a hardcore critic now? :-S Wesley☀Mouse 18:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Not to worry, my final exam of three is tomorrow then I will get back fully into the swing of things and enjoy the Eurovision final on Saturday. I keep reminding myself that things have been even harder for you. In any case, editing will drop off within a week of the final and there will be plenty of time to iron out any issues. I'm already making plans for an RfC on ESC article by year content, so we can get some firm agreement on what goes and what stays. CT Cooper · talk 18:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you CT Cooper for making the section on Loreen more clear.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the line: On 24 May, Ali Hasanov, a representative of the Azeri president Ilham Aliyev; requested the EBU to prevent such meetings is not an accurate representation of the facts. This is his statement: [15] From what I see, he said nothing about prohibiting Loreen from meeting with opposition members. He objected to politicization of the contest. Quotes need to be accurate. Grandmaster 18:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Different words, same meaning. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the new section about Loreen's meeting should be included in this article really - the details within the paragraph would be more beneficial to Sweden in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 and probably also on Loreen article. Both those articles are more a target area for this subject. Wesley☀Mouse 13:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I dont think Wikipedias article on Eurovision Song Contest 2012 should be "censored" of any negative surrounding the contest. This is an high official giving a Eurovision entrant critic for meeting up with people who work with human rights. Effectivly telling the EBU to make Loreen stop doing that. It is a current topic concerning the actual main contest and not Swedens pre-selection as Wesley suggests or Swedens Eurovision history. It should thereby be included in the main article and in the Loreen article. We can not "censore" this article from the reality of holding a contest like this in a country were human rights are ignored daily. In my opinion atleast.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you're failing to see the underlying point though BabbaQ. This article is about Eurovision 2012 - the details on Loreen talking to the Human Rights people is something which Loreen did personally; she didn't undertake her actions purely for Eurovision 2012 - so there's no connection really. But the information would really benefit an inclusion on her article as well as Sweden in Eurovision article. We need to start taking things seriously here, and only add content that is relevant to the article subject; we shouldn't be going off on a tangent and adding details that would be better suited on an article relating to the information. Wesley☀Mouse 15:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

So if anyone also saw the Press Conference of Semi Final 2, Loreen was also censored by the compere after a journalist brought up the gay rights activism she had partaken in and was denied a right of response with the reason being given "to keep in the harmonious spirit of the event" (note: not exact words), I can understand that Eurovision has a harmonious spirit in the vein of the songs being presented but not by denying free speeches - how could this be added to the wiki with no real source? (Conference was viewable live online only and has no transcript and video link is not available) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.69.46 (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah EBU wants nothing to interrupt the "glitzy festival" such as talk about human rights of silencing Loreen.BabbaQ (talk) 13:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Semi-final tables

What are the place and points columns for? And why doesn't the table for the final have them?--86.178.142.209 (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Self-explanatory really. The columns will have the overall points and placings once they are published by the EBU after the grand final on Saturday. They aren't in the final table yet, as that section is still a work in progress. Wesley☀Mouse 21:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Some errors in the finals table also. (e.g. Italy awarded 7 points to Romania)178.167.213.106 (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Webcast failure

Looks like the webcast of the 2nd semifinal on both Eurovision.tv and Eurovisionlivestream.com failed due to hack attack, probably DDoS one (as neither site responded at the expected time on May 24). Once the references about that come, the related section could be created, including earlier attacks on Esctoday. Brandmeister^talk 09:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to #Esctoday_attacked_by_hackers section. It seems that the EBU was being cautious and temporarily disabled parts of their website just in case they where hacked again; and they will continue to do so until after the contest has finished. Wesley☀Mouse 10:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

But why would they disable webcast? If webscast failed, it was either overloaded, or came under DDoS attack. We need to wait until any info is available, but I heard complaints from other people that they were not able to use webcast yesterday. Grandmaster 10:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Very odd as I was watching the web feed through eurovision.tv and had no problems. But it is when I changed rooms to watch the Final allocation draw did I encounter some problems, which were sorted quicky. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 10:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime the diplomatic row between Azerbaijan and Iran continues: [16] Azerbaijan has demanded a formal apology from Iran for its recent statements in connection with Baku's hosting of the Eurovision song contest. Grandmaster 10:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't comment about the webcast during the semifinal itself, as I watched that on BBC3. I did log onto Eurovision.tv soon after though to watch the press conference, and the only page available was their home page - all other pages where inaccessible. If the website was hacked, then every page wouldn't have been available. However, as only one page was and others wasn't then logic prevails and would mean that the EBU was in control of it and probably disabled access to every page but their main page. It is easily done. Wesley☀Mouse 13:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The webcast had no problems, the page, however, did. It was accessible, but with great difficulty and a large number of refreshes. – Andreyyshore (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It is dead again. Grandmaster 07:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Voting during the final

Anyone else that didn't understand the sentence under "Voting during the final"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.160.32 (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The sentence is fine, but it isn't referenced; so we can't verify if the details are accurate or not. Wesley☀Mouse 16:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Tie-break rules

For a while now we have all thought that the tie-break rule was only used if there was a tie for first place. But the EBU have announced today that there was a tie for 10th place in the second semifinal - and they used the tie-break rule to determine who qualified. So based on that, we are now able to clear up the grey area regarding tie-breaks since the introduction of the semi-finals. Under the current rules of the contest; if two or more countries finish on the same number of points anywhere in the overall results, then the song that received votes from the most number of countries is deemed to take the higher position. If that also turned out to be an identical number, then a countback system of the number of 12 points, the 10 points etc would come into consideration. Wesley☀Mouse 16:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, interesting.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Erm, is that not how they have done it, for a couple of years now. Number of countries who voted for it, then the most 12's, 10's etc. I'm sure this has always applied to 1st and 10th place. Edit: Really fucked of with the whole Eurovision.tv is down and hacked crap :( -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 18:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it has been down again, but it seem to be Ok now. Strange that they do not try to explain what's going on. Grandmaster 19:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

If Greece or Spain were to win....

Spain has already said that if they win, they most likely will not be able to host the next ESC. I take that Greece share the same conclusion. Worthy mention in the article? Jørgen88 (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Its not worthy of a mention just yet as it is still unknown who is going to win. If this circumstance did occur then yes. Patience is a virtue, so let's see what the outcome will be. Wesley☀Mouse 06:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Lukas Plöchl to by co-commentator in finale for Austria

http://oe3.orf.at/songcontest/stories/545314/ Lukas Plöchl, part of the band "Trackshittaz" that performed for Austria in the First Semi-final will be a co-commentator along with Andi Knoll for the ORF. And also, Stermann & Grissemann won't be commentating on ORF2, but on a second sound-track on ORFeins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.117.124.177 (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

OK.BabbaQ (talk) 13:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Running order and spokespersons revealed

The running order and spokespersons are revealed here. [17] --Ahmetyal (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Already a step ahead :-) I added the voting running order a few moments ago. Wesley☀Mouse 15:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Im just speculating here. But after seeing the running order based on the jury votes from the semifinals and how it all calculated in scores a Swedish victory seems likely. But we will see.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Really? I looked at it and thought it looked like either a Spain or Serbia victory. Wesley☀Mouse 15:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It is an exciting night ahead....:)--BabbaQ (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just had a brainwave idea for the article, which may also work across all articles too. Lately we list the voting order and spokespersons in separate sections. Seeing as both are connected anyway, wouldn't it be more logical to amalgamate these two sections into one section headed "Voting and spokespersons"? Thus we'd be saving article space, and for choice of phrase, killing two birds with one stone by covering everything in one section. Wesley☀Mouse 15:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. the running order hasn't been based on the jury votes from the semifinals. They've been based on the jury votes for the final - which the jury members did their voting yesterday during the dress rehearsals. Wesley☀Mouse 15:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you on the first section. And then, OK interesting. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been bold and amalgamated them together. If it looks OK, then we can rollout the similar style across other articles. If not, then feel free to revert it back. Wesley☀Mouse 16:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we should tag the top of the article with {{current}} template to show its a live event happening today, and that the article is likely to be busy with editing activity. This might reduce the chances of edit conflicts occurring. Any objections to me adding this? Wesley☀Mouse 17:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I support that initiative.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Sod it, I'm going to make another bold move and just add it anyway. Check me out being brave around here all of a sudden. Wesley☀Mouse 17:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

ITN nomination

Just so you are aware. I have nominated tonights event for a mention in the ITN section. Even though I guess it would have been mentioned there anyway.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Name of a country must be changed

The name of the country referred as "Macedonia" should be changed to "F.Y.R.O.M." or "FYR of Macedonia" according to the UN resolutions and the policy of the EBU and the ESC.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciberche (talk • contribs) 18:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

No, see WP:NCMAC. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 18:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The name of Macedonia must change to Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as labelled in the Eurovision contest too.'Bold text' IT IS COMPLETELY ILLEGAL TO WRITE AND NAME A COUNTRY WITH A NAME THAT IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BY ANYONE. Wikipedia if they want to be fair must not serve the political ambition of a country to name Macedonia as Greece. THERE IS ONLY ONE MACEDONIA AND THIS IS THE HELLENIC. The other name is FYROM Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.YOU MUST CORRECT IT IMMEDIATELY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.90.144 (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

WHY DO YOU PUT THE NAME OF Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia AS Macedonia for the eurovision contest? THe eurovision contest refer to it like that: FYR Macedonia WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS? This is very serious!

We're not gonna change it and, if you do, we will revert it. We have reached a consensus a long time ago (if you didn't participate in the discussion, it's your problem). Wikipedia doesn't care about how the EBU names a country. – Andreyyshore (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

WHY DO YOU PUT THE NAME OF Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia AS Macedonia for the eurovision contest? THe eurovision contest refer to it like that: FYR Macedonia WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS? This is very serious! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.90.144 (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I hadn't participated in this discussion and I haven't any right to speak and that is my problem! This is the way that wikipedia works and that's why no one takes it seriously anymore...

Macedonia is Macedonia. And Greece is Greece. Two different countries. Get over it.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Learn some history firstly and then speak! THE REAL NAME OF YOUR COUNTRY IS VARDAKSA BUT IF you like it change it to MONKEYDONIA. It is more appropriate for you! You are completely uneducated! Read the letter of 200 Classical Scholars from around the world to Obama. Well you must get over it and do your homework! http://macedonia-evidence.org/obama-letter.html I HAVEN'T SEEN IN THE WIKIPEDIA ANYTHING ABOUT THIS! END OF DISCUSSION... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.90.144 (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:NCMAC. That is all. GRAPPLE X 23:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I call for a removal of this section as it is only filled with nationalistic hate from some individuals.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The ancient (Greek) Macedonia and the (former Yugoslavia) Macedonia have nothing in common, except for the name. One was an ancient hellenic kingdom, the other is a present-day republic (using a slavic language). The only common thing is the name. The Greek provice of Macedonia and the Republic of Macedonia are located in the geographical/historic region of Macedonia, which extends to south-western Bulgaria. Also, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia now is know as Republic of Macedonia, so there is no way to get the two confused. It is like comparing the Polish provinces of Upper and Lower Silesia with the historical region of Silesia which extend from North Eastern Czech Republic to parts Eastern Germany. Norum 16:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you know that they already exist maps that include the Hellenic province of Macedonia as part of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia? So do not tell me that there is no matter of confusion! This misuse clearly implies unhealthy territorial aspirations. The same motivation is to be seen in school maps that show the pseudo-greater Macedonia, stretching from Skopje to Mt. Olympus and labeled in Slavic. The same map and its claims are in calendars, bumper stickers, bank notes, etc., that have been circulating in the new state ever since it declared its independence from Yugoslavia in 1991. They hold the view that by renaming a potato to apple, the potato will then taste like an apple. In other words, they think that by renaming a country's name from 'Vardaska' to 'Macedonia', in the mid 20th century, they can include in its identity, all Macedonian history that took place even as far as 2000 years before the name change. I cannot blame all innocent slavic children that have fallen victim of their educational system and nationalistic propaganda. One cannot blame one, for what he does not know! But I blame all those who are actively involved in any sort of deliberate, organized, intentional attempt towards world history falsification, so as to achieve their own goals and interests. I include Wikipedia because by naming the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as Macedonia contributes to all this!

Take a look here: http://macedonia-evidence.org/obama-letter.html

This is the letter of 200 Classical Scholars from around the world to Obama. Of course you cannot find this in Wikipedia ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.210.177 (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

For the last time, there is a community-wide decision already been made at WP:NCMAC in regards to how the nation is to be referenced as in regards to various Wikipedia articles. In this case on Eurovision-related article, the name to be used is Macedonia. There is nothing that any of us can do to change that decision. If we start altering the name to anything other than what we have been told to use, then we'd be in serious breach of policies and could face being blocked from further editing on Wikipedia. Not one of us would wish to go down that route. So please, no more demands that the name must be changed, as future demands will just be ignored. Thank you - Wesley☀Mouse 21:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed addition of new content on human rights

Looking at the above discussion on human rights, it appears that discussion stalled out over concerns of WP:SYNTH and tone. I'd ask editors to check out these paragraphs to see if they might be more acceptable: [18].

Personally, I consider it insane to refuse to discuss the human rights issues linked to the contest in our main article. These articles have been prominently discussed in dozens of reliable sources--just do a google news search for "Eurovision" "human rights". A contestant has also gotten involved in the issue. If the article has room for three paragraphs on the graphic design (two sources), surely it has room for to mention the human rights context (hundreds of sources). Khazar2 (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Please remember that the name and subject of this article is Eurovision Song Contest 2012. Any contents within it should be about the main subject at hand. If you read the section Eurovision_Song_Contest_2012#Venue you will notice there is some coverage on the human rights issues. However, we shouldn't go into excessive detail on the entire issue, as it has no real connection to the main subject at hand. Wesley☀Mouse 18:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

All of the articles cited in my proposed addition are specifically about the Eurovision contest. This has been predominant in coverage of the contest; BBC, for example, mentions it in the fourth sentence about the contest's finals tonight. [19] How can you argue that human rights issues here have "no real connection to the main subject at hand"? They're in every story I open about Eurovision. This is not undue weight to discuss a major facet of the contest in the article. The current content appears to me only to discuss issues related to the concert hall, not Azerbaijan generally. Rather than censor this content, I suggest we follow the example of our reliable sources and include it in our discussion. Khazar2 (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

For curious editors, here's a list of major news organizations that devote serious discussion to human rights issues with regard to the contest. My proposed addition is only a start; I'd be glad to see more:

• Al Jazeera
• CNN, [20]
• BBC
• New York Times
• Los Angeles Times
• Associated Press
• The Guardian
• The Wall Street Journal
• Reuters
• The Daily Mail
• Agence France-Presse

-- Khazar2 (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

To add to the above, Google News shows 7,270 hits for "Eurovision "human rights" Azerbaijan" in the past month.[21]. This is not a fringe story; this is major global news that Wikipedia is currently censoring. I'm not particularly attached to my own text or format, but with this story likely about to head to the main page via WP:ITN, it's a shame to exclude a big part of the story. Let's find a way to make this happen. Khazar2 (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Before yourself or any other editors re-add the content, please allow this discussion to conclude. Three times now I have had to remove the content, which from what I gather is exempt of 3RR as it is removing content that is still being discussed. However, the attempt to keep readding the content despite the reasons explained in the edit summary by Khazar2 (talk · contribs) and Eugen Simion 14 (talk · contribs) could be perceived as tag-team editing and therefore both users would be in beach of 3RR themselves. Wesley☀Mouse 19:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, you should re-read WP:3RR; your actions are in no way exempt. I'm also not clear how Eugen's actions put me in violation of 3RR, but I suppose I can cross that bridge if an administrator talks to me about it. But instead of getting bogged down on this, let's try to get back to the issue at hand. What do you make of the argument above--that if all major media sources discussing Eurovision also discuss the human rights angle, our article should too? Khazar2 (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

This information clearly merits inclusion, it's been the main issue in the press for some time now when the contest has been discussed. Not to include it simply reeks of cherry-picking and risks falling afoul of NPOV for presenting only one side of a widely-debated issue. As for 3RR, it does not matter that the content is under discussion, performing four or more reverts within a 24-hour period when the reverts aren't fighting clear-cut vandalism (which these definitely have not been) breaks the 3RR rule and is subject to intervention, simple as. GRAPPLE X 22:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Khazar2 and Grapple X - the discussions over human rights were all over the place. The German commentator who announced Germany's votes even explicitly wished Azerbaijan to continue its progress towards free voting! This political appeal during the show is unprecedented. Khuft (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there should be at least mention of the fact that human rights have been a significant media talking-point in relation to this year's competition. We don't need to go overboard, but the indirect mention that's in there at present, to my mind, is likely to make a typical reader think they should be told more. Formerip (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

So if there's tentative support for some mention of the human rights issues to appear in the article (only one opposing editor and four supporting), would someone like to include this text, or some abridged form of it?[22] I'm fine with someone writing wholly new text, too, if anyone prefers, but no one appears to have raised any issues with this text itself, just the idea of including news about Eurovision. To be clear, this isn't an attempt to declare this discussion closed (I hope it'll continue for some time), but given the serious POV issues, I'd like to at least take stopgap action while this one is the lead item for WP:ITN. (I'd do it myself, but I've already tried adding this twice today and been reverted). What do you think? Khazar2 (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There is already a paragraph on the evictions in the venue section. Perhaps the venue section could be re-named to "Location" or similar and a sub-section on human rights integrated there, merging in the content on the Swedish delegation. CT Cooper · talk 12:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't read the discussion above, but I totally agree and Support that if human rights was a major concern and was so widely reported in news, then it should be in the article. Here are few examples from Bahrain: 2012 Bahrain Grand Prix, Bahrain Grand Prix, 2012 Bahrain Grand Prix protests. However, it should be noted that according to an American researcher, protests got 17 times more coverage than the race itself. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, some content has been provisionally added. I've followed CT Cooper's good suggestion above for using the "venue" section and merging the two existing bits of content. A Google News search suggests that the human rights angle has gotten about 5 times the attention of the logo design, but the two subsections are about the same size, so I hope there won't be concerns this time that the section is excessively detailed. (Or at least that these concerns will start being applied to the article as a whole, rather than only to the section that editors don't like.) I'm fine with seeing it trimmed down if it's demonstrably less notable than the rest of the article, however. Thanks everybody for your input. Khazar2 (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

By the same token, Azerbaijani-Iranian row received lots of coverage in every major news outlet. I think it should be mentioned in the article. Grandmaster 18:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any immediate concerns about the level of coverage, although counting paragraphs is a dodgy was of doing it. There are not three paragraphs on the logo, there are three paragraphs on the graphic design, two of which are very short and could easily become one paragraph. Any statistics provided on coverage should be backed-up by numbers and sources, although relying on Google News to dictate what is in the article is problematic as it does not cover all reliable sources, the latter of which is the correct way of determining weighting per WP:NPOV. CT Cooper · talk 21:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I wrote above, I checked a number of major media sources to confirm they had prominently covered the topic, checked yesterday's front page articles of those sources for coverage, and checked overall numbers on Google News. I meant those numbers to be the start of a discussion, not the end, and I'd be glad to hear more options for how we could fairly assess the relevance of this compared to other subsections of Eurovision coverage. Khazar2 (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Song Contest

It's a song contest, who cares if they violate human rights, have corrupt governments, pollute the environment and eat cute teddy bears for breakfast, it's just a Song Competition. Did we make a fuss about Abba, when Sweden was making legal kiddie and animal porn? No because it's only a Song Competition. 86.148.39.133 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

If a majority of reliable sources writing about Abba had covered the kiddie porn/Abba connection you're alleging, of course we would include it. As in all things Wikipedia, we have to follow the sources; it's not our call to make. Khazar2 (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

This is about entertainment, it is about culture. If someone wants to make a song contest a venue of a protest about something else, nudism for example, that's entirely illegitimate. Trash the bogus concept of 'human rights'. Death to it. We need to update this with the voting results.Sponfreer (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I won't argue with your disdain for human rights, but again, we don't get to pick and choose what goes into Wikipedia based on what we don't personally like; the important thing is to accurately reflect the coverage of Eurovision, and a large portion of that coverage is discussing this. Khazar2 (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

What Khazar said. Also, the idea behind the Eurovision Song Contest is to bring European countries and people closer together, on a cultural level -- and therefore to an extent also on a political level, which thrives on the culture in each respective country. So, you're wrong about "It's just a contest". No, it's not. It's intercultural communication. But yeah, most relevant to this article is the fact that comments on Azerbaijan's political situation have been a part of much of the media coverage, and must be duly noted in the article in order to present a neutral account of the sum total of reliable, independent sources about the topic. --89.0.200.88 (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Request

I would like for article that listed the statistics on placings and a list over the overall placing of the top 5 placing countries of the 50s 60s 70s etc, to be undeleted. I dont remember what the article name was. I never understood why the article was deleted as it is interesting to see how the lists change over the years. I think the article name was something like List of placements/statistic for placings in the Eurovisionn or similar. If someone could undelete that article it would be appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If it is re-created it is likely to be re-deleted under WP:CSD#G4 as consensus was clear that statistics pages using methodology made-up by editors violates the WP:NOR policy, and are trivial. Providing such pages is not a function of Wikipedia and it is irrelevant as to whether they were interesting or not. For other's convenience, the AfD in question was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the top ranking countries of the Eurovision Song Contest. CT Cooper · talk 20:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Azerbaijan..I mean really?

I understand that a singer from Azerbaijan won last year and that is why the contest was being held in that country... why was a singer from an Asian country allowed to take a part in this contest? I mean its name is "Eurovision", not "Asiavision". Norum 02:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not a forum. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 02:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

This is hardly new, both Israel and Morocco have competed in the past. Entrance is based solely on membership of the European Broadcasting Union, which also includes nations like Jordan, Lebanon and Tunisia. Expansion into central Asia is hardly a surprise. GRAPPLE X 02:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I can understand that israel would be in, because of the political issues, but Morocco?...but, as you say, the entrance is based on the EBU membership, then it makes more sense. Still, I do not understand how could EBU approve non-European members? Norum 04:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

This is an off-topic discussion. This talk page is for discussion of edits to the article. But I will answer your question. Europe extends all the way to the Ural Mountains. So Caucasus is in Europe. Grandmaster 06:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

When you look at the map, only Georgia qualifies to be counted as an European country. Armenia and Azerbaijan...no. Same as Turkey is not an European country. Norum 06:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

See this: [23] Grandmaster 08:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yup, clearly states "Asian territory". Norum 14:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Partially in Europe. Plus, as noted above, it is a member of the EBU. Grandmaster 18:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Having 1% of your territory in another continent doesn't entitle you to "consider yourself" of that continent. As for EBU..to bloody hell with them, they even have third world countries as members. So what's next?...considering Denmark to be a North American country because of Grenland? Norum 20:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Still not a forum. =) Khazar2 (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Mistake in scoreboard

There is a mistake in the scoreboard. Malta is shown as having given 10 points to both Italy and Serbia but no 5 points. I believe they gave 5 points to Serbia. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.71.150.94 (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The German 10 points for Serbia are missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.133.162 (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Sweden gave 8 points to Estonia and 10 points to Serbia. Not 8 points to both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.135.185 (talk) 10:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There is also a mistake in the Irish votes. According to the current scoreboard Ireland gave 10 points to both Germany and Serbia (but no 8 points). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.39.170 (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The scoreboard is not given in the order of vote being received. This has the side-effect that it becomes harder to correlate it to the table given by the ESC. Reordering the table to order of votes received would also assist in showing the tension of voting development. The current table has a diagonal symmetry for the MxM countries which participated in the final, which doesn't help very much for finding who voted for who which would be the benefit of such ordering. The current order thus fail to provide the benefit it could possibly have, while another ordering may provide a different aspect not covered. I discovered this while cross-checking it for a statistical analysis. Cfmd (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to take responsibility for errors with the scoreboard (especially for the Final scoreboard). Editing the scoreboards can be tedious and ever-so painful when composing it. I'm just trying to follow the consistent pattern that is used for scoreboards for the entire WikiProject for Eurovision, which is completely different from the format on the Eurovision website. Thanks for being patient though and observant so that we can document accurate scores! Dfizzles (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 May 2012

I've noticed that you used the name Macedonia for the counrty wich is located in the central Balkan peninsula in Southeast Europe and I would like to inform you that this is incorect and I would like you to chande the name into the real one wich is FYROM.Thank you for your time

Ermioni97 (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read this. Thank You. — Tomica (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Declined per WP:NCMAC. The FAQ at the top of this page is pretty clear as well. CT Cooper · talk 11:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Mistake in Countries that competed for Eurovision 2012

You are refering to the country "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" as Macedonia.This is a mistake because you are confusing Macedonia (a big ancient region in Greece) with FYROM a country which is one of the successor states of the former Yugoslavia, from which it declared independence in 1991. --Mamalinio (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

See above. It is not going to be changed. I'm beginning to lose count of the amount of new accounts that have appeared to make demands on this issue - something which hasn't happened in previous years. I hope there isn't sock puppetry going on here. CT Cooper · talk 11:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

For the last time Mamalinio, Macedonia is Macedonia and Greece is Greece. Two different countries. Let it go.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The ancient (Greek) Macedonia and the (former Yugoslavia) Macedonia have nothing in common, except for the name. One was an ancient hellenic kingdom, the other is a present-day republic (using a slavic language). The only common thing is the name. The Greek provice of Macedonia and the Republic of Macedonia are located in the geographical/historic region of Macedonia, which extends to south-western Bulgaria. Also, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia now is know as Republic of Macedonia, so there is no way to get the two confused. Norum 13:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd imagine it's because Macedonia had a better result than Greece. – Andreyyshore (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

@CT Cooper/Maybe they are "fyrom" FERG... :-) --E4024 (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

For Eurovision, Wikipedia's community has agreed to use Macedonia, not FYROM. And that's that. The end. doktorb _words^deeds 20:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Anomaly in the results with Macedonia and Romania

See User talk:CT Cooper#ESC 2012. Any explanations on what is going on? CT Cooper · talk 13:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If there's a tie, then the entry that receives points from more countries takes precedence. Should there still be a tie, the 12's, 10's etc. are counted. If they're still tied, the country earlier in the draw has priority. Romania received points from 14 countries, whereas Macedonia got points from 12 countries. – Andreyyshore (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I thought I was missing something. I have found the rules here (from 2009, but the tie breaking rules haven't changed as far as I'm aware), which puts points from any country ahead of the 12, 10 e.t.c. countdown. CT Cooper · talk 20:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I had mentioned the tie break situation in a thread above somewhere. The EBU posted a thread on Eurovision.tv in regards to a 10th place tie-break that happened in semifinal 2. They said they used the tie-break rules that are in place; which suggests that the tie-break rule covers any position and not just 1st or 10th places. Wesley☀Mouse 20:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that appears to have been the case for a number of years now. Though in some older contests (early to mid 2000s) the EBU left some ties unbroken on their website, or at least used to, causing some confusion in the past. CT Cooper · talk 21:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the tie break rules only used to determine the winner? Other countries (such as Cyprus & Ukraine for example) should have tied placings (theirs being 15th). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.170.65 (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Not according to the EBU rules. They seem to use the tie-break rule no matter what the placing is. The tie-break rule was used during semi-final 2 in Baku, when 2 countries tied for 10th place. Wesley☀Mouse 23:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but that was only used because it was necessary to determine who the 10th qualifier would be, they couldn't have allowed 11 countries from the second semi-final to proceed to the final. I'm sure the tie break rule is only used to determine the winner (or indeed, the qualifiers). Other placings are ranked jointly. Last year for example, Romania & Russia finished joint 16th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.170.65 (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The EBU scoreboards, at least for the last for years, have shown all ties as broken, so that is what Wikipedia goes with. CT Cooper · talk 22:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Austria

Sternman and Grisseman wasen't on ORF2, there comentated on ORF1 on the 2nd audiotrack. View: Zweikanalton --Bjferstern (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

urgent correction

Please think of urgently deleting the pornographic gif that some ignorant put under the references. This kind of gif should be immediately banished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seinistes (talk • contribs) 20:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. The problem was on page Template:Sv, which was vandalized to display the gif on a number of articles. Khazar2 (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Could you please be more precise as to where this item appears on the article? I've looked under the references like you state, and see no link to pornographic material whatsoever. Thank you - Wesley☀Mouse 21:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem was in what's currently reference 25, where a template marked the source as being in a foreign language. A redirect to the template was vandalized to show a pornographic gif instead of the Swedish flag. Khazar2 (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did read your brief explanation that you posted originally, after the edit conflict that occurred. Wesley☀Mouse 21:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone got around the protection of Template:Sv icon by vandalizing the re-direct at Template:Sv. Due to the potential for vandalism, when a template is permanently protected the re-directs should be as well, but this didn't happen in this case. I'm now working on fixing any other such vulnerabilities in this template. CT Cooper · talk 21:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't even know those templates existed - now I've learnt something new tonight, and will use those more often. Wesley☀Mouse 21:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I am really thankful for all of you who promptly reacted. I am sorry for my initial indignation. Seinistes (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem, we're all here to assist wherever possible. And thank you for bringing the issue to our attention so that we could act upon it. If you're interested in joining the project team, then feel free to add your name to the list of members. Regards; Wesley☀Mouse 13:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Scoreboards

Scoreboards have been added. Please copyedit/adjust figures if needed. Inputing these can be tedious. Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfizzles (talk • contribs) 23:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I won't even try to edit those pesky tables. Anyways, here's one for those who are willing to plunge into the depths: In semi-final 2, apparently Bosnia didn't award 5 & 12 points. - Jetro (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Corrected the table accordingly - BiH gave 5 to Slovenia and 12 to Croatia. Wesley☀Mouse 01:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

New Section suggestion

Any information regarding human rights/incidents should probably go to a new section titled "Controversies" or "Incidents" rather than sections such as "Location," "Venue," "Spokespersons," etc. Dfizzles (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I am against miscellaneous controversy/criticism sections per WP:CSECTION, and will not support the creation of such a section here. They are often an indication of a poorly written article and frequently raise WP:NPOV issues. I don't see why human rights issues can't be integrated into the article like everything else. CT Cooper · talk 15:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It is just a suggestion for consistency/continuity purposes as I noticed that Eurovision Song Contest 2009 contained a section titled "Incidents" that included information regarding LGBT protests, Georgia-Russia conflicts, and Armenia-Azerbaijan conflicts which were all reported from a neutral POV. Dfizzles (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I have repeatedly called for the overhaul of such sections so they are better integrated into the article, which has happened in other places. The main problem with such sections is they fragment negative information at the bottom of the article, where there are other parts where they can be placed into, with the rest of the article having to be more positive to make-up for it. The 2009 version isn't too bad, but the 2007 one was so badly written, I deleted it a while ago. The human rights issue was something ongoing before, during, and after the contest and was not an "incident", so having it such a section would be inappropriate anyway. CT Cooper · talk 11:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I added a section on Iran-Azerbaijan diplomatic row, as it was Eurovision related, and was covered in major news outlets. Grandmaster 13:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You've added it as a new section, yes. But it now has "ticket sales" and "national host broadcaster" showing directly under as sub-sections, making it look like they are connected, when they are not. Wesley☀Mouse 13:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it, hopefully. Grandmaster 16:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed that the word Iran in the section header, has been wikilinked, which shouldn't be per MOS:HEAD. I'm wondering if that new section, along with ticket sales, and national host broadcaster should all really be sub-headed as they are all in relation to the main header "Location" - more so the ticket and broadcaster sections. Wesley☀Mouse 16:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind. Grandmaster 16:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I just re-fixed it using guidance on MOS:HEAD. And it looks better now, and ties that section up nicely, with an easy flow of events - if you know what I mean. Wesley☀Mouse 16:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

commentators missing from the list

please add them to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The contest has not long since finished, and this article is still going through a tidy-up process. Updates on commentators will be added in due course. Wesley☀Mouse 21:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Greenland and Faroe Islands (Denmark)

The contest could also be seen on SVF and KNR1, in Greenland and Faroe Islands as they show it via broadcaster DR1 from Denmark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.177.250.242 (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Azeri security claims attack was stopped

Azeri security officials today claims that 40 people was arrested within hours of the live final. According to the azeris the people arrested had plotted to do some "terrorist attack" inside the Crystal Hall during the live final. One person was killed during the arrests and all 40 of them had tickets for the final. Swedish media reports this today.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Split jury/televoting results

Will there be any Split jury/televoting results sections in this years article? Or has those results not been published yet.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Not been published yet. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 13:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say a month at most for them to appear. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

As of 5 June 2012, some broadcasters (Germany, Portugal, and Italy) have released information regarding the jury votes. I volunteer to add the sourced information on each participating countries individual ESC 2012 page if there is a consensus that the information is appropriate for the article. Thoughts? Dfizzles (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to sound pedantic here, but seeing as there is still an RFC discussion taking place on the project page regarding Eurovision by Year articles, including content/style.layout issues, then wouldn't it be wise (and probably logical) to discuss this over there too? There are talks of some details being removed from articles, and I these split jury/televote tables are among those. Wesley☀Mouse 17:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

There's something wrong here. How can the split jury/televoting reslults for the 2. semi final and the final of the 2012 contest be from May 2011? Aejsing (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Now c'mon, it is very obvious that the editor updating the information hadn't noticed the typing error. Anyhow, the prose was very weak, so I've expanded them more, to give a brief explanation for the unfamiliar reader. We as Eurovision fans know what the tables are for, but for someone who doesn't follow Eurovision religiously, wouldn't have a foggiest clue what a table of split results mean, unless we as editors provided that detail in written format. Wesley☀Mouse 14:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)s

The televoting results of Germany and Spain seem to have been reversed on this article recently, with Spain having 125 points and Germany having 45. According to the offical website, Germany still came 6th in the televoting alone. So: Either the results from Eurovision.tv were wrong, or someone has vandalised the article. Aejsing (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume that someone has vandalised the article, that is a serious accusation to make without solid evidence to back it up with. It could just be a case of a typing-error, which is easily done. And don't forget this article has recently received GA status, and every detail was checked by the reviewer with a fine tooth-comb, including the split results, so if it was an error it would have surely been picked up then. Wesley Mouse 14:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't mean to offend anyone, so I will not make such an assumption again. Sorry about that. I just found it strange, because Germany was in the 6th place in televoting when the split results were revealed in this article. Aejsing (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Lack of a simple list ordered by points total

Why on every Eurovision page is there no descending list with the winner at the top? It's one of the few things most people are probably looking for. Has someone made it their mission not to have one? 82.41.20.28 (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

All the tables are sortable, so clicking on 'Points' or 'Place' will sort that out. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 14:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Following on from AxG's reply, a sortable table is by far the better option here; as it allows readers to sort the tables into any order they desire, rather than just viewing it at in 1st to last place order based on overall results. Wesley☀Mouse 14:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone has messed up the final results

Someone has messed up the final night results on the resultboard. Just to let you know.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted it back now.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The "only commentator to articulately address human rights"

This gushing opinion (of Anke Engelke) was in the article as if it were a statement of fact, rather than just the opinion of one source. Is Anke Engelke an expert in human rights, or a human rights activist? No she is not. She is "a German comedian, actress and voice-over actress"! Is the source of the "only commentator to articulately address human rights" claim an expert in human rights, or a human rights activist. No, it is not. So the opinion has no validity and should not be there. Meowy 02:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Zymurgy has reinserted similar content without addresing any of the points I have raised in the above. And has actually made that content even worse. "She was reported as being the only commentator to make any reference to the political situation in Azerbaijan during the event". Really, Zymurghy! Hundreds of commentators have been making reference to the political situation in Azerbaijan during the event. Meowy 12:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems like you are taking this way to personal then it has to be Meowy. To have a small mention about it in the article is no big deal.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Ironic that the content was removed from human rights section, but was left intact on the voting and spokespersons section. I remember all too well the heated debate and troubles the entire human rights section impacted on members of the project. Some didn't want it included (and I will hold my hand up there, I did feel unsettled with it being included), while others felt it needed to be addressed. Reading the views of others over the duration of the discussion, I had come to terms that the information did warrant an inclusion, as it was a notable incident. It is a known fact that the contest is watched by over 100 million people worldwide, and the fact that sources cite what Anke Engelke had said on live television, which in itself was witnessed by the 100,000,000+ viewers, doesn't make the detailed sentence any way a one-sided POV; but adds to the notable incident. Wesley☀Mouse 13:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Another thing worth noting, and does reflect on a point Meowy raised. Hundreds of commentators had made references to the political situation in Azerbaijan during the event, and not just Anke Engelke. The difference being, is that those hundreds of commentators made their references through their national broadcast of the event, which would have only been heard by the viewers of the country for which they where commentating for, making their statements POV. Whereas, Anke's comments were made during the 'live televised announcement of votes, so all broadcasters would have listened to her statement, thus making it non-pov. Wesley☀Mouse 14:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"Hundreds of commentators have been making reference to the political situation in Azerbaijan during the event. Meowy 12:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)" - that is a fair point. I have changed "commentator" to "national spokesperson" which I think makes it clear(er) --Zymurgy (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

However she is not a "national spokesperson", that wording is not correct. She does not speak for any nation and Eurovision is (correct me if I'm wrong) composed of an alliance of TV companies not governmental bodies. So her role when delivering those words was as a television presenter for whatever broadcaster organises the Eurovision contest in Germany. The significance I see here is that (and wesleymouse I think is saying the samething) the words were delivered as part of the actual Eurovision broadcast (meaning all viewers of the contest heard it) and that no other presenter mentioned a similar thing. That significance, if correct, needs to be put into the article. Meowy 00:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That significance is exactly what I said above. Although, really she would be a spokesperson to some degree. The national broadcaster for Germany, selected her to represent the German broadcaster in respect of announcing the points of the German televote - thus making her a "spokesperson" in right, with the "national" terminology in meaning of Germany being the nation she represented. Wesley☀Mouse 00:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Then again, you could technically classify the spokespersons announcing the points, as "Spokesperson for ..." (in this case for Anke would be Spokesperson for NRD/ARD). Wesley☀Mouse 00:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm about to say this, but Meowy, I applaud your rewording work on the article. It does improve it very much indeed. I bow my head to you in admiration of that work. Wesley☀Mouse 00:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) "The presenter from Germany" seems fairly neutral to me, does not even stress her nationality. I don't know if there is Eurovision "jargon" that gives her a different title, but even if that jargon is "national spokesperson" we need to make it clear that she is not a "national spokesperson" beyong the limits of the contest, so "presenter" is, I think, the cleanest solution. Meowy 01:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I'd question over the term "presenter", is that it means she presented. And she didn't present the show, only announced the points - her 5-minutes of paid work so to speak. How about... "Anke Engelke, the German televote announcer, ... blah blah (the blah's meaning the other stuff that she said etc). See, in Eurovision-speak, a spokesperson is someone who announces the votes, a presenter is someone who presents the contest, and a commentator... well I think you get the gist of it. Another thing worth noting though, the entire topic on what Anke has said isn't just covered in that section you altered. Its also in the "voting and spokespersons" section too, which IMO would be the more logical place for it anyhow. Wesley☀Mouse 01:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"Announcer" then. But why mention her nationality? And maybe "allude" rather than "refer" would a better way to describe her delivery of the words (given she didn't directly mention the words "human rights"). Meowy 01:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup, announcer sounds nice, seeing as the German TV station only paid her to announce LOL - and I think to mention her nationality iterates the fact she announced points for Germany. How else would the general audience reading the article know which nation she was announcing for?. And allude, hmmm, sounds very mysterious - I like it. Very alluring :-) And on that note, its 2:15am (almost) and I've to be up in 5 hours time, so need to get some sleep. G'night Meowy, and g'night everyone else! Wesley☀Mouse 01:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Eureka!! Just had a thought, which would work well all round. Move the paragraph you've just tweaked, into the "voting and spokespersons" section (over-ridding the paragraph already in there about Anke). And then we only need to refer to her as "announcer" without the need to mention her nationality, as her German nationality will be evident from the list of spokespersons that precede above it. Wesley☀Mouse 01:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've changed refer to allude. I feel this content should remain where it is because the words were spoken in the context of the human rights in Azerbaijan issues - and the Voting and Spokespersons section is really just a list of names with no indication about what they said (probably since nothing the rest said was notable!). But the duplication should certainly be gone - so I've deleted the duplicate content that was in the Voting and Spokespersons section. Meowy 11:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Missing content

On No.4, Lithuania, in the final, in the English Translation Part there is no __ so I say you should put this in.86.44.213.142 (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Returning Artists

I was watching the past few ESCs recently and I noticed that Anri Jokhadze, the 2012 representative from Georgia, was a backing vocalist for the 2008 entry from Georgia. Would he be considered as a returning artist? Here is an article from escXtra.com that mentions his involvement. And even though YouTube videos are not preferred references, here is video proof of his involvement so that you can see it for yourself. Dfizzles (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomica (talk · contribs) 17:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Will start soon. From first view looks like it can become GA, but additional work is needed. — Tomica (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Thank you Tomica, and we look forward to reading your comments for your review process. If any additional work is required, then we're happy to cooperate and rectify/iron-out any minor hiccups. I should note that we are aware of a few dead links from the site ESCToday.com; they are a result of the company being hacked into a few weeks ago, when they lost 12-years of work in a matter of seconds. There is a similar cite 'ESCDaily' which hold similar articles that could easily replace the dead links. Although some editors have queried the reliability of ESCDaily recently. Wesley☀Mouse 18:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• We will see what gonna do with those dead links, but replacement is needed yeah. Are they planning to re-work and add the information back? I mean are you aware? — Tomica (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• From their reports at the time of the incident, they (ESCToday) did state that they would try and get back as much of the work as possible. But naturally estimating a time-scale for them to get 12-years work back is near impossible. Which was why I had suggested to the project a while back about using a similar site (ESCDaily) as a back-up plan, as they tend to publish almost identical news articles. Wesley☀Mouse 19:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Can I see the discussion? — Tomica (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course, here is the Discussion on article page and project page. Wesley☀Mouse 19:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Dead links

• 15, 16, 17, 19, 33, 80, 77, 76, 96, 85, 93, 98, 95, 99, 105, 107. = 16. Some solution has to be done for this.— Tomica (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

•  Fixed - Replaced with new reliable sources covering the same news that the previous deadlinks where covering. Wesley☀Mouse 21:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Any update on what is happening here? Everything seems to have gone quiet for a few days. Discussions regarding the split jury/televoting tables have gone silent, and nobody seems to be making a clear consensus either way about what to do with them. Are we able to continue with the rest of the review in the meantime, then at least we can doing something about this GA. Nothing wrong in us going back to the split table discussion once we've covered the rest of the article. Wesley☀Mouse 22:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The references are the only issue remaining (apart those tables), will continue tomorrow or later today with the review.— Tomica (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed - All references have now been tidied up. {[t|cite web}} has now been added to raw references that didn't previous have them, and any missing data from references that did have cite web have been filled in. Wesley Mouse 14:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

• No issues. — Tomica (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• It does not follow the format WP:LEAD. The lead should summarize the whole article. It can be better. Like this it reads pretty rough. I know that you followed the format of the previous ESC's, but still they are not GA. — Tomica (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• The format of all ESC articles have been discussed at an RfC on the project talk page, and based on the suggestions, a new style was created. This standardization is currently being rolled out on the older articles, and have made dramatic improvements to those articles. The same layout was then implemented onto this article, and again a huge difference in the flow was noticeable. I will work on tidying up the lead now, and then work on the other areas shortly after. Wesley☀Mouse 19:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed - Shuffled the lead around to give it more chronological summary flow (in accordance to order of sub-sections on article). This may need to be fixed again, pending the review comments for the rest of the article. Wesley☀Mouse 20:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It reads and flows better. But I was thinking of also adding some additional info. In which avenue was held, was it built back in time or now to held the contest. Mention the graphic design, the contest spawned criticism also that. — Tomica (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course, yes I understand what you mean, and will gladly add the extra information. I was assuming that other areas of the article was also to be reviewed; and waiting to see if any alterations would need to be made to those sections first, so that brief details could also be included into the lead. Wesley☀Mouse 15:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

 Expanded - Its amazing how much I am learning from this review alone about writing a decent article. Added a few small but precise lines to the lead, regarding the venue, the graphic design, and criticism concerns that spawned. Wesley☀Mouse 16:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

What do you think about the lead now?:) This is smthg different. — Tomica (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I quite like how you've slightly alter the wording. It has made a difference and make the opening summary very inviting; so that the general audience would be hooked to want to continue reading the rest of the article. Wesley☀Mouse 19:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead should be interesting for the users to continue to read the whole article. ;) — Tomica (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Location

• I read the whole section. The prose reads good. But I really think that there should be some background information too. Like which edition of the contest was this one, why it was held in Baku (following its win), a little bit of history about Azerbaijan in the Eurovision Song Contest. It will really make the reading better and the article would be like more informative. — Tomica (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
• The picture for the proposed venues breaks the Format section. It should be placed upper. — Tomica (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed - Added some background information about Azerbaijan's history in the contest, and how they came about being the hosts. There is a mention already about which edition the contest is in that section (towards the end). Trying to think of a way to word it somewhere near the top, without it confusing the remaining section. Wesley☀Mouse 20:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Format

• The references number 24 is the source for the whole paragraph? If it's so place it like 2 times plus in the end of some random sentences. — Tomica (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
• This was the second time in the Eurovision Song Contest that 26 countries were in the final, the first being the 2003 Contest. : WP:OR — Tomica (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

•  Fixed - The paragraph has a reference 25 sneakily hiding in the second paragraph. Moved it to the end, and also duplicated ref 24. Added a new ref, to verify the 26 countries statement, and remove the WP:OR prospect. Wesley☀Mouse 20:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Semi-final allocation draw

• The participating countries, excluding the automatic finalists (Azerbaijan, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom), were split into six pots, based upon how those countries voted in past contests. From these pots, half (or as close to half as possible) competed in the first semi-final on 22 May 2012. The other half in that particular pot competed in the second semi-final on 24 May 2012. ---> Not sourced, so again we meet with WP:OR. — Tomica (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Ahh this one is easily fixed. The source for it (number 28) has been placed at the end of the wrong sentence. The double-sentence The draw that determined the semi-final running order was held on 25 January 2012 at the Buta Palace.[28] The participating countries, excluding the automatic finalists (Azerbaijan, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom), were split into six pots, based upon how those countries voted in past contests. From these pots, half (or as close to half as possible) competed in the first semi-final on 22 May 2012. should really be covered by ref 28. I'll move that accordingly. Wesley☀Mouse 19:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
•  Done - Fixed. Wesley☀Mouse 20:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Graphic design

• Each introductory postcard begins with a shot of the artist and performers, followed with the flag and country name in a handwritten font with a background resembling the yellow, orange and red fire of the 2012 theme art. Various shots of Azerbaijan are used, with a caption displaying 'Azerbaijan' and underneath 'Land of ...' (e.g. Land of Abundance; Land of Poetry etc.). this is then followed by the name of a town or geographic feature, which shows the landscape and culture of the country. Some postcards focus on the host city of Baku with text changing to 'Baku' and underneath 'City of ...' (e.g. City of Jazz; City of Leisure etc.). ---> Are references number 29, 30 support this text too? I alredy told you, if they did you should put randomly in the end of some sentences in the paragraph. If don't WP:OR. :P — Tomica (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Same with the para below. — Tomica (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

•  Fixed - Reference 30 supports both paragraphs more. I'll randomly duplicate the ref into the sentences too. Wesley☀Mouse 20:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Ticket sale

• Sorry, but too small to stay on its own. And non-notable too. — Tomica (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I personally think this section could be merged into the format. Wesley☀Mouse 19:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

•  Done - Fixed. Moved the small sentence, and incorporated it into the end paragraph of the location section. Wesley☀Mouse 20:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

National host broadcaster

• Its good. — Tomica (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Notable incidents

Human right concerns

• "Tonight nobody could vote for their own country. But it is good to be able to vote. And it is good to have a choice. Good luck on your journey, Azerbaijan. Europe is watching you." ---> This is a quoted sentence, meaning that in the end it should have source. — Tomica (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• References 46 and 47 are situated at the end of the quotation sentence, and cover this. Should the sources be placed in a better position? Wesley☀Mouse 20:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
•  Fixed - I've italicised the quotation, and removed the part that stated she (Anke Engelke) was the only person to have said the statement. This has allowed the refs 46 and 47 to follow directly after her quotation. Wesley☀Mouse 20:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Tensions with Iran

• I guess its okay. — Tomica (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Participating countries

• This section together with the sub-section reads so bad. It's so rough. Why adding more background information on every country that returned and withdrawned. The same with the performers who returned to the contest. Understand what I want to say? — Tomica (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• The first section does seem to be repeating context from the lead, but also from the semi-final allocation draw section. I think that could ideally be removed, if it to help in improving a good article. As for the returning artists section, they use to be in a table format at the bottom of the page. But then it was decided a written prose would be better. Although again, would a user really want to know a particular artist(s) returned to the contest? These details would easily benefit better in the articles concerning those artists. Wesley☀Mouse 20:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• To be honest, as a fan of ESC and Wikipedia reader I was always interesting in reading which artists returned in the contest, which year they participated, which placed finished and stuff. I really think that this section is needed. And also everything that is in the lead should be in the body of the article too. — Tomica (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have an idea to improve the returning artists section. I can add details of their previous song entries, and the final placing in those particular contests. That should add more insight to a reader, as to what they sang, when they sang it, and where the song placed that year. Wesley☀Mouse 20:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Good! That is what I mean actually ;) ! — Tomica (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

•  Done - Fixed. As per suggestion. Wesley☀Mouse 20:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Looks better now, but why everything in one sentence? I mean there are too many colons. Btw I am not sure if the left picture should stay, they are flattering the text. — Tomica (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Colons? I don't see any ":" in that section. There are comma's "," which are correctly placed grammatically. As for the section itself, It would either mean separating three very short sentences, or keeping them merged into one paragraph. This particular section alone, is a difficult one to expand, without making it sound repetitive. Any suggestions? Wesley☀Mouse 19:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• I meant this (;). Btw the lead says that 42 countries took place, while the body of the article 43, both of them are unsourced and its like WP:OR. Source it. And for the section the sentences itself can stay in one paragraph. No need for separating them in respective paragraphs. — Tomica (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see any (;) in the participating countries section either. Although there are some in the returning artists section. Technically the colon acts as a pause within a sentence. It allows the writer to merge smaller-worded sentences together, into one larger sentence. It is like having a full-stop (.) to stipulate an end of a sentence and a comma (,) to stipulate a break in a sentence. They are to indicate to a read (who may be reading it out loud) that they may pause for breath at that stage - that is the way I was taught at secondary school with colons, and when/where they should be used. The number of participating countries is a weird one too. There was 43 confirmed, and all the sources show 43. However, Armenia withdrew their application before the contest began, and therefore the number reduced to 42. There are sources to show Armenia withdrew, but none that read the new number of participants was 42. Wesley☀Mouse 19:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• I meant the returning artist section. Lol. And yeah add the source that there were 43 artist originally with Armenia later withdrawing. And for the prose, the sentence is huge (talking about the one in the participating countries). Split it if you can. — Tomica (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• A-ha that is quite simple to fix now upon reading your suggestions. There is a source used in the lead which shows 43 countries, and then there are sources currently in use which mention the Armenian withdrawal. Both can be re-used as refs in this section too; thus showing there were 43, and with Armenia withdrawal, mathematically makes it 42. Wesley☀Mouse 19:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
•  Done - Fixed sections per suggestion. Lead section added ref for Armenia withdrawal. Participating countries - Added ref to verify the number of countries confirmed. Returning artists - removed colons, and split section into 2 smaller paragraphs, for easier reading. Wesley☀Mouse 22:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Results

• This section looks good. I like the tables, they are just fine. But the split votes from the jury and televoting should be removed. They are breaking the other tables. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the split vote tables too. As previously mentioned I was pretty sure a decision was reached on the project to no longer include those; although I'm struggling to locate the actual discussion regarding them. Those results don't really show anything, other than how the juries voted, and how the public voted. The actual results are a 50:50 combination of the two, and are already covered in the actual result tables. Wouldn't the split results not be classified as trivial? Wesley☀Mouse 19:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

They are trivial definitely. So delete them. Strongly, there is no need for them to be there. — Tomica (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

A decision regarding these tables appears to be nearing the end of discussion. Do we wait until that concludes before continuing the GA review, or are we able to proceed with this review and hope the split table discussion completes in the process? WP:NOTSTATSBOOK would suggest that the split results tables are excessive and should be removed. However, the tables alone do verify the context about 50:50 combined results, by showing their individual results as well as the combined version. Wesley☀Mouse 21:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I think that we can wait until there is a final consensus and then remove them. As I think the only other issue with this article are the references. The rest looks fine. — Tomica (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

CT Cooper (talk · contribs) had commented on this WP:NOTSTATSBOOK policy, but had to cut his reply short. He is currently on a wikibreak (in Berlin) for the next few days. I'm 99.9% certain he will comment further and probably make a decision on his return. Only note 3 of Notstatsbook suggests too many tables are irrelevant on an article, unless they are covering vital parts of the article's subject, then they are permitted. So far I see them as excessive, but I can also see them as being vital addition to the article too. Wesley☀Mouse 21:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It does appear that the split jury/televoting results are vital and provide evidence into the "50:50 combined results" statement which is also mentioned on the article, adding more verification into the content. As a compromise, the split results have been placed into collapsible tables, and situated next to their respective scoreboards, thus giving the reader the option to view them, whilst also keeping them hidden from view for those who don't wish to view them. Wesley☀Mouse 16:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments from second reviewer

Second Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk)

I don't particularly like using someone else's review, So I'm going to quickly review the article myself: starting at Location working to the end and then going back to do the WP:Lead. Pyrotec (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

OK that's perfectly fine, I'm just happy that we're getting somewhere again. God darn Olympics not half causing havoc with my personal schedules lol. Wesley Mouse 16:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well you might change your mind, soon. Pyrotec (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• WP:Lead -

• I still intend to do the lead last, but I needed to know what this article is about, and that information is given in the lead. Roughly two thirds of the lead was about Baku / Azerbaijan and one third was about the contest's "points". So I conclude that Baku / Azerbaijan is the most important part - if that is not the case, then the lead is not compliant with WP:Lead.

• The host nation tends to be the most vital part of each contest, as there are other articles that go in more depth about voting history, participation history and history of the contests. Also it was the first time Baku, Azerbaijan hosted the contest, and with much controversy too, which is noted in sections of the article. Wes, 17:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this point. Pyrotec (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Location

• In general OK, but the prose and the paragraphs loop around a bit (see below).
• Y Pyrotec (talk) - The second two-sentence paragraph, i.e. "Azerbaijan's first Eurovision appearance was in 2008, and ....", seems to be the most importance as that is the reason Baku / Azerbaijan hosted it. So this paragraph, I suggest, aught to come first. It's also quite short so the current first paragraph could be appended to this paragraph, but I'm willing to consider alternatives.
• Y Pyrotec (talk) - The final paragraph seems to be an afterthought or add-on (we've got the 25 Jan 2012 announcement and now we're going back to Aug 2011). It should appear in proper date sequence (or there about), so it aught to appear before the " ... Azad Azerbaijan TV (ATV) ..." paragraph.

• This section had been written differently, but the previous reviewer had changed the wording slightly to its current format. Sections about the host nation/city are extracts from their respective articles (Baku/Azerbaijan). Wes, 17:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
•  Fixed - Swapped paragraphs around, and appended any as required/suggested. Wesley Mouse 17:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Format -

• There is mention here of Eurovision Reference Group for the first time, who are they and what do the do (is there a wikilink, citation or other information about this group)?

• There is no Wiki article for the reference group that I know of. But there are sources that I can add. Wes, 17:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• televoting needs a wikilink, e.g. televoting.
• Y Pyrotec (talk) - "SMS" or "SMS lines" (I'm not sure which) seems to be a technical term so it needs a wikilink or an explanation.

• I'll fix those 2 sections now. Wes, 17:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - I'm not sure what a "national jury" is, e.g. one for each nation, one member from each nation, an Azerbaijan national jury - its an unnecessarily vague statement.

• Each participating country has a national jury which consists of 5 professional people of the music industry. Wes, 17:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - What's the "Big Five", it is the same as the "automatic finalists" (six countries) mentioned by name in the follow subsection?

• There is a small piece on the "Big Five" on the main Eurovision Song Contest article, would it help to wikilink that? Wes, 17:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
•  Fixed - Added source for Reference Group. Wikilinked 'televoting' and 'SMS' Also linked national jury to Jury with expansive detail on who the jury were etc. Wesley Mouse 17:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Semi-final allocation draw -

• Looks OK

• • Graphic design -

• Is postcard the same as postcard, if so it needs a wikilink but the subsection fails to explain the purpose of the postcards - the design is explained but not the purpose?

• Kind of yes, but not of the paper variety. They are visual postcards depicting various parts of the host country and/or host city. Kinda like a tourism publicity stunt, to entice new visitors to the region. Wes, 17:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

•  Fixed - Wikilinked postcard, and expanded to detail their intention purpose in the contest. Wesley Mouse 17:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• • National host broadcaster -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - Three companies are named and wikilinked, but ITV is not explained or wikilinked.

• I think ITV has been linked in the infobox. Wes, 17:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't spot that it was İTV not ITC. Pyrotec (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

•  Fixed - İctimai Television had been wikilinked, and then later on ÍTV written, but nothing to explain that it was the abbreviation for the channel. I've now expanded the İctimai Television to include the abbreviation code. Wesley Mouse 17:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• It was stated (later in the article) that there were 43 participants, but there is no explanation how countries other than the host nation saw the contest.

• Not sure - Those are covered in the International Broadcasting and voting section further down the article. Wesley Mouse 17:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Notable incidents -
  • Human rights concerns -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - "NGO" or its plural "NGOs" needs an explanation or wikilink.

• I'll look into that one. Wes, 17:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
•  Fixed - Expanded NGO to stipulate its official name 'non-governmental organisation' and wikilinked the word. Wesley Mouse 17:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Tensions with Iran -

• Looks OK

• Participating countries -

...Stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Looks OK

• Thank you. I swiftly acted upon a redlink I noticed in that section. The song title "Samo ti" doesn't have an article, so I've created a redirect for it to Kalipoi's article for now so that the unsightly redlink turn a more pretty blue colour. Wesley Mouse 18:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Results & Other countries -

• These two sections look OK

• Other awards & International broadcasts and voting -

• These two sections look OK

• I noticed that Lebanon has a mention in the OGAE section. Just in case the general viewer wondered how Lebanon could participate in OGAE when they haven't participated in Eurovision, I have wikilinked the country to it's respective page Lebanon in the Eurovision Song Contest to allow further insight. Wesley Mouse 18:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• WP:Lead -

• This should both introduce the topic of the article and summarise that mains points (see WP:Lead). It seems to fulfil the "introduction" part, but I'm still checking the "summary aspect".
• Having done another quick read of the article, I'd suggest that the lead needs a bit more "meat", but not too much. After that (provided that the reviewer does not return) I'll award GA-status.
• Ignoring the tables, the Lead is roughly balanced in the same proportion as the body of the article and 43 participating countries were mentioned, but another sentence or so on the human rights aspects and those nations who did not attend because of such concerns. Pyrotec (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'll beef up the lead now while I have the time to concentrate on it. Wesley Mouse 19:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Before I add the beefed up version, I wanted to add it here first for an opinion in regards to whether I am heading the right direction or not.
• "The Azerbaijani government invested larges sums of money into their first hosting of the contest, which was widely discussed by the Western media as a mitigation attempt to dislodge the misgivings over poor democracy and human rights record within the host nation. Several Human Rights groups protested against the stern crackdown of the freedom to express the governmental regime within Azerbaijan. Armenia withdrew from the contest due to security fears in regards to the continuous Nagorno-Karabakh War with Azerbaijan. Despite wider concerns of the host nation's criticality over human rights and political issues, the contest went ahead as planned." Wesley Mouse 19:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• If that is what you wish to say, its a bit too wordy. I'd suggest something like (but you are free to do it differently): "The government invested heavy, which the Western media viewed as an attempt to mitigate external concerns over its poor democratic and human rights record. Several Human Rights groups protested against the crackdown of the freedom to express (concerns with?) the government regime within Azerbaijan. Armenia withdrew from the contest due to security fears over the ongoing Nagorno-Karabakh War with Azerbaijan. Despite wider concerns of the host nation's criticality over human rights and political issues, the contest went ahead as planned." Pyrotec (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
•  Fixed Wesley Mouse - The way you've worded it is how I envisioned it in my head, but I couldn't get the words to cooperate in my brain. I'll add that version. Wesley Mouse 20:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• It's funny, I couldn't see the mistake when I wrote it, but I found the mistake after you added it. Enjoy your dedicated motorway lanes to the games, you now got a GA. Pyrotec (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   An interesting and informative article.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm happy to award this article GA-status. Congratulations on a fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me for a second while I just jump around with so much joy. YIPEEEE!!! Thank you, oh I feel so proud now. Now for the joy of the Olympic Motorway Lanes. I hope I don't get myself lost like some of the athletes' did earlier today. Wesley Mouse 21:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Congrats to you Wes, and to everyone else involved for writing, improving and overall contributing to the article. :) -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks AxG, a bit of faith and I knew the project could get a GA on it's first Eurovision by year article. And I repeat your gratitude to other editors who also helped in the article building process - teamwork barnstars all-round me thinks!. Here's to many more GA's to come (hopefully). Wesley Mouse 22:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)