Talk:Evropesma

1

The previous 'Controversy' explanation was just as comprehensive as this one, even more so. It' seems to me that the added detail only serves as justification for the Montenegro judges voting practice, when in fact it isn't needed at all - the voting was within their rights and should not be explained if we want to avoid flame. Let's please stick to the facts and try to keep it NPOV.

First order of business should be if No Name should be listed as winners in 2006. I say it's a simple matter of logic - if there was a winner they would represent S&M in ESC. There will not be a representative of S&M in ESC, hence there is no winner.

Further more, the UJRT statement clearly states that RTCG demanded No Name to be declared as winners, and refused to accept another contest to be held. This demand was not met so it was decided there would be no representative on ECS. If the winner was not officially declared there can be no winner listed.

I created the entry for Evropesma before the contest in 2006, when I saw that this issue wasn't covered in Wikipedia.

I am not here to justify anything. I don't think that the voting was fair at all. I do think that it was according to the rules. I don't think that I am using Wikipedia to express my frustrations with the vote, because Wikipedia is not a forum for that -- however, by adding more information that might "justify" the Montenegrin vote (which is just ludicrous) I am actually giving a fairer picture. The part you took out actually explains why there is no televote only -- it's in no way a justification of the RTCG jury. Who is right or wrong is up to the users of Wikipedia to decide, I guess.

Furthermore, No Name won the competition, it wasn't VERIFIED. That's the difference. If the audience didn't boo them, they'd have gone home with the prize. Moreover, the press release by UJRT states that the "SEM representative was not "determined"", not that there was no winner of Europjesma. This is the excerpt from the press statement:

Pozivajući se na zvanični izveštaj kontrolora glasanja, koji je konstatovao da u tehničkoj proceduri glasanja nije napravljena nijedna neregularnost, predstavnici RTVCG su zahtevali da se potvrdi izbor pesme, koja je na takmičenju održanom dana 11.marta u Beogradu dobila najveći broj glasova. Taj predlog nije prihvaćen.

You say the logic of the case is winner=representative. Law does not follow the common logic if such logic is not set out in the rules. I.e.: if the winner has to be verified to represent SEM in Athens, the correct logic is actually verified winner=representative. This is why I do list No Name as the winner, whilst accepting that they will likely not go to Athens as they fail to meet the "verified winner" part of the equation. Gettit???? You can buy the ticket, but not go on the trip, basically.

The RTS demands that the vote was unethical (and I agree with that personally) but that does not mean, once again I repeat, that it was irregular or illegitimate. It's great that you wish to contribute to the page, but please don't accuse me of anything (especially since I endeavored, as you did yourself, to make it more understandable). Also, I have added more stuff to your 2005 controversy, and fixed certain things -- such as "public bid", which isn't really used for songs -- it's a public (or open) competition (Serbian: konkurs). Oh and "comprehensive" means "sveobuhvatan" in Serbian, it is not the synonym of "comprehendable". --Ogidog 01:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to keep it short and sweet, as I do with the actual article.

Number one, there's more to winning then finishing first, there's the small matter of everyone else acknowledging it, as I'm sure you would agree. But if you insist No Name to be listed with the 'unverified' tag, let it be so, as it is a poignant example of how things work.

Number two, all the detail you added about the circumstances that drove the RTCG judges to vote in such a dubious way two years in a row is exactly what makes this article unfair. It is clear for me what made them act like that - they are thieving bastards, but for the sake of NPOV let's just state the facts and let everyone decide for them selves. Further more:

"In 2004, the fairly anonymous representatives from Montenegro got scanty points. In addition, the RTCG representatives in Evropesma have generally little chance against a number of big music stars that generally take part on behalf of RTS.!"

No shit! Anonymous representatives didn't do well on a public competition? Call the police! :))) And as the 2005 televoting result showed, RTCG representatives DO have a chance to win, so the other sentence is wrong as well. Also, the current status should be made clear first, and historical added after as a reference. As it turns out, there's comprehensive, and than there's a lot of irrelevant crap (4000 seats in Sava Centar?), with important facts omitted - like the Serbian judges recanting their vote, albeit without legal ramifications. ;)

Number three, in regard of 2004 selection process. I don't remember that competition. What was it called? Where was it held? If my memory serves me right there wasn't one, they just put together a commission, performers applied, there was no actual performing or a contest, and 16 were selected. It was just to fill out the numbers, everyone already had their favorites.

On a more personal note: I'm not accusing you of anything I just call it as I see it. And I'm not hiding my frustration, I'm frustrated as hell! I was rooting for Ana Nikolić, and look what happened! :)))--Bahati 13:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Bahati, read the information about the 2004 competition on the Serbian version of Wikipedia. I will revert to the previous version. It's important to see why there's jury besides televoting. Also, irrelevant may be that Sava Center has 4000 seats -- however, it's the audience that booed the "winners" off the stage. So, yeah. Public competition is konkurs, that's where the sixteen songs were selected, then RTS added 4 songs from Beovizija, then RTCG added four more songs from god knows where -- the 2004 Evropesma was held one day after the 2004 Beovizija. (If you can't remember something find sources -- www.rts.co.yu/euro) As I said, Wikipedia is not a place where you should express your frustrations. 137.99.66.150 19:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Televoting vs. jury (and combinations of the two) in singing contests is an age old question. It is misleading to say that the reason for introducing judging was because televoting gave little chance to unknowns from Montenegro - the 2005 televoting proves they do have a chance. Think of another excuse... Or we should add something like: With the jury system came the opportunity for some of weaker moral fibre to make a mockery of the contest for their personal and political gain. Are you sure you comprehend the concept of NPOV?

"Competition" doesn't emphasize the "god knows where" element enough. I can't think of a better one than 'bid', as it is used in business - witch this was, more than anything. And it does fit. And we're not obligated to use the first word that pops out of the dictionary, we can choose better wording so as to reflect the facts more accurately.

As for the frustrations, I can be frustrated all I want on the talk page. The question is, are you frustrated because the Montenegrin plot failed, or because they even tried it so you desperately try to put a positive spin on it? Either way, it's understandable, but you shouldn't try to vent your frustrations in the article... --Bahati 11:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried to tell you, as I am writing this from United States and am bilingual, that your English was a little off. You don't bid on anything in a song contest.

I didn't say anything about televoting being taken out because of anything you say -- the Montenegro members of the UJRT demanded the change of rules because they couldn't stand a chance against Zeljko Joksimovic and similar people. They demanded it, and later abused it, or used it to benefit themselves. I don't know why you seem to think that I have taken the Montenegrin side. That's ridiculous. I am just trying to explain what happened and why it happened. Many people wonder why there was no televote only, why there is a jury in the first place, and this is why, I repeat: because Montenegrin TV wanted the judges, so they can send someone from Montenegro to Eurovision.

They can't get anyone famous from Montengro to compete for them because none of these people want to compromise themselves in Belgrade, as that's the place where they bacame famous. Please go check the page on No Name to see what says there about them. Also, I deliberately added the Montenegrin flag picture of No Name, as it is an illustration of the fact that their choice had a political background. I will add that to the caption, as they were warned by UJRT not to promote the republics but the country they represent.

--Ogidog 01:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware that 'bid' isn't the most fortunate word, but I'm just not comfortable with 'competition' and what it implies, when the songs were probably selected over some lunch and according to who knows what criteria. I see you deleted the whole sentence so this is a moot point...

OK, if the songs were selected on a "javni konkurs" that means that they were selected through a public competition -- people sent in songs that fit certain rules, and then someone chose the ones that they saw fit (over a lunch or not, that's irrelevant). Secondly, check your spelling -- it's committee, not whatever you wrote.

god damn it, it's like talking to a brick wall! can it be worded without using either competition or bid, or anything else? it can! so let's do that and put this to rest. sorry for the spelling... --Bahati 11:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Your English shouldn't be in the way of accurate information, Bahati. There is no reason to compromise as you don't really understand a word. Also, the contest in 1994 was called Evrop(j)esma, and it became Evropesma/Europjesma in 1995. So no need to change that! You don't seem to fully know the history of the contest, I'm afraid. The article on the Serbian Wiki is very good, so I suggest you read it. I'm very open to discussion with people who have something smart to say -- you, unfortunately, wasn't even aware of the 2004 contest and now you want to correct the info I provided (look above at your own comments!). Ogidog --67.172.1.76 20:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not, 'bid' is more accurate, although I'm sure some translation bot churned out 'competition'. Casual reader may think there was a contest, or actual performing and he would be wrong. 1994, 1995? Are you sure it was called Evrop(j)esma? Parentheses and all? There was no contest! Don't you get it? Using words like 'competition' or 'contest' for 'konkurs' may be accurate according to some dictionary, but it's misleading in this context!

Anyway, I've stopped you from ruining the voting process explanation, and that's enough for me, if everyone else is fine with you insisting on misleading in other parts of the article I'm not gonna bother... --Bahati 11:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I don't need translation bots. Are you insane? Second -- check the Serbian version about 2004, and stop being so convinced that you are right: Yes it was called Evrop(j)esma in 2004 -- but then Montenegrins changed it to Europjesma in 2005 in Podgorica so the parentheses couldn't be used.

For your information, when you place a bid on something, the person that wins the item is the person who gives the most money. Go to Ebay for a good illustration. A public competition is when people anonymously or not send proposals to a team of experts who choose the best proposal. Okay? And check my IP -- it's from America -- even if I didn't speak English well myself, I could ask anyone around me... Alright?

Your pitiful attempts to escalate this discussion to a personal argument by name calling and quack psychiatry are duly noted. I'm not going to participate, as I've accomplished what I set out to do. Mislead away...--Bahati 19:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so let's just leave it at that - it was changed on their demand. The whole bit about scanty points and big stars is contradictory to the rest of the article if you state it as fact. Or try to word it so it's clear that it was their argument witch was later proven wrong if you're so keen on getting it in. However, I don't see the point, as everything is self explanatory if you just stick to the facts, and leave everything else to the reader. --Bahati 02:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you found the picture showing Flamingosi but it certainly does not represent their appearance at Evropesma or Beovizija—namely, my video recordings show both guys wearing black suits both nights. This was probably a rehearsal? --Dzordzm 23:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You can find a lot of info on Serbian Wikipedia (article mainly by yours truly). I am not very active around here but anyone wishing to discuss the current controversy should at least take a look at the voting figures from this and previous year. I will be happy to give any further information I have that could help you enhance this article - kindly contact me via my sr.wiki talk page (English welcome). --Dzordzm 23:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well paste the voting charts for 2005 and 2006 so it's clear. Also, if the dates when the events were held could be added, it would be awesome. I just can't deal with all the conversion from Cyrillic. Also, are you sure this is not the last performance on the photo, when the audience wooed them on stage. I only saw that performance, and it looks good to me. It can be the rehearsal tho. --Ogidog 00:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, that's the one - the last "unintended" performance :) so we can leave it. --Dzordzm 01:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

OK I added the voting charts. Usually on English Wikipedia songs are listed in the order of appearance, but I think that would ruin the point of these charts because the voting horror is concentrated around top songs from both states. --Dzordzm 06:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The winner of 2004 Evropesma was definitely not decided through a televote. The voting procedure (4 RTS, 4 RTCG, 1 televote) was pretty much as colorful as every other year with the exception that there was agreement to send Željko to Istanbul. Apart from that, Serbs gave all Montenegrin songs big fat zilches (used by Montenegrins as pretext for later scandals), Montenegrins reserved all top votes except what they gave to Željko for themselves plus two top songs from Beovizija got zilches from them too, and there was also some cool verbal soccer going on. Unfortunately it is very hard to find official score sheet from this year but the above I vividly remember. If somebody has the score sheet please paste it into the article. --Dzordzm 09:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Evropesma logo.png

Image:Evropesma logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ujrt.jpg

Image:Ujrt.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Evrosong ujrt.jpg

Image:Evrosong ujrt.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Evropesma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110722174714/http://www.rtcg.me/index.php?akcija=vijesti&id=16813 to http://www.rtcg.me/index.php?akcija=vijesti&id=16813
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060208035104/http://www.rtcg.org:80/montevizija/index.php? to http://www.rtcg.org/montevizija/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Evropesma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130113195933/http://www.rts.rs/euro to http://www.rts.rs/euro
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rtcg.org/montevizija/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)